Lobbying

[deoxys]

After recently reading that Rick Perry came out in support of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger after AT&T gave him $500,000 (I'm aware this a heavily left leaning site, I apologize for the blatant bias, I'll see if I can find a better site, here's another similar article, though) , and having also seen him be told on video "I'm from Bank of America, we will help you out" by a BoA representative... I was wondering what everyone thought of lobbying and its current role in the political spectrum.

Personally, the very thought that a corporation can persuade our representatives to vote a certain way or to put forth a bill in their interest with a large sum of money pisses me off a lot. Why is it even allowed? At all? It's not right. Anyone else remember the infamous case in which our now Speaker of the House John Boehner handed out checks from a tobacco company on the house floor right before a vote in regards to tobacco regulations? Which, by the way, actually worked... (I highly recommend seeing this video)

Anyway, thoughts?

(boy I wish I could find that site that had pictures of politicians with logos on them like NASCAR drivers from the corporations they receive the biggest contributions from....)

[Talon87]

Disallowing it would only mean you drive it completely from public view. As it stands, many deals are done privately. Make it illegal to lobby publically and they'll just all go private. Illegalizing lobbying is not going to make it go away.

Benefits like the ones you detailed for Perry are not unique to politics. In the hard sciences, research studies are often sponsored or co-sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies, agriculture companies, food companies, and so on. I was reading a paper today published by an Israeli team of biomedical researchers that had been sponsored by no fewer than five pharmaceutical companies, among them names you might recognize in Novartis and Bayer. Complicating matters, the chief scientist on the paper (i.e. the first name listed on the paper) admitted in the aptly-named "Conflicts of Interest" section of the paper that he had been on the advisory board to several of these companies and had received $500,000 in funding from one of them. This sort of thing can be very damaging in science. It is our gut instinct to not trust these studies for fear of interference from the companies and/or fear that the results are going to be altered to favor the interests of the companies' investors. When this is true, it's already bad. But when it's false, it can be bad too. It means that scientists are more inclined to turn down offers for funding from "Big Pharma" and others in order to preserve their image within the scientific community. That is to say, scientists will turn down the money because they're worried that just by accepting the money they'll lose everything they've worked hard to establish over the past 10-20 years. This means that potentially perfectly clean research funds are being turned down. This is obviously not good. In an ideal system, we could sort out clean money from dirty money. But it isn't an ideal system, unfortunately, and so the back-and-forth remains between those scientists who accept the funds and justify it by saying they're trying to find answers as rigorously as possible and those scientists who see that a paper was sponsored in part by [insert company name] and toss it into the discard pile. And just like with politics, you have to keep in mind: these are only the ones who report it. There are probably many research programs which receive partial funding from corporate interests and who don't report it for fear of the stigma that accepting corporate funding would bring.

While it can be a gray issue in science, I don't think it tends to be quite so gray with politics. That is to say, I think with politics the question of lobbying is closer to the "THIS IS AWFUL! " end of the spectrum than it is the "Why are we looking a gift horse in the mouth? " end. But I imagine it can be gray even in politics sometimes. Defense funding may be funded in part by Lockheed Martin or other aerospace companies who hope to carve out a portion of the returns (e.g. exclusive access to data gleaned from military prototypes testing). FDA studies which would benefit us all (by helping us to rule in or out numerous drug candidates for numerous diseases) might be funded in part by pharmaceutical companies who hope to gain something from the studies as well. For example, it can be in Eli Lilly's interest to fund an FDA study which scrutinizes Lilly's newest drug: because it costs the company less than funding the study completely in-house on their own, it brings the FDA seal of approval with it (assuming the drug passes), and/or it helps Lilly to promptly know to scuttle the project (assuming the drug fails). General Electric, Duke Energy, or any other number of energy companies may be motivated to fund a Department of Energy initiative to build greener houses if they think it'll help with their public relations. Can we really complain about GE helping to fund a cleaner tomorrow?

But as for congressmen getting kickbacks from companies because they vote a certain way? That's extremely questionable. Hard to justify why when I'm physically swaying in my seat from tiredness, so I'll wrap this post up here. But I don't think legislators should be allowed to receive kickbacks and such and that if they are caught they ought to be kicked out of office or severely penalized.

For the record, not trying to defend lobbying because I think it's great or something. I'm just trying to present the idea that I don't think prohibiting corporations from having a hand in helping out is necessarily any better than allowing them to do whatever the hell they want. Middle ground, people. We have to strike a middle ground. Lobbying, bad. Allowing corporations to donate to political entities (e.g. DoE, Defense, FDA, NASA)? Fine by me, provided it's held to the same standards we'd have for corporations donating funds to private enterprises. In science, my personal view is "don't accept funding from big companies" as it's not worth introducing the bias to your study perceived by the scientific community at large nor tarnishing your reputation as a lapdog of private interests. It's important to every scientist for his word to carry weight, to have value. But I do think it's a shame that we as scientists cannot accept funding from corporations while we can accept it from taxpayers (i.e. federal funding). It would be nice to be able to accept it from both.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by deoxys

Why is it even allowed? At all? It's not right.

Lobbying is a general term to refer to interest groups influencing political decisions, banning everything that could feasibly be labled as lobbying has profound implications, and opens up predecent for a lot of legal abuse.

The #1 goal of all politicians is to get re-elected, and interest groups help make that easier. In a world without organized interest, the politician has the difficulty of trying to asses majority opinion, and thus has to spend a lot of money on un-certainty. It's not necessarily a better scenario for a lot of reasons I'm not up for talking about right now.

Most electoral races are decided by simple majority, so lining up enough interests groups nets the politician that majority. The interest groups mobilize the voting populace for the politician. The interest group provides votes and the politician listens to curry those votes in the next election. Don't like it? Make your own and beat out the other groups.

Lobbying isn't monetary, that kind of influence falls under bribes/gifts, which is illegal. The money Rick Perry got was in the form of campaign contributions, which aren't any different from individuals. If George Soros donates $1,000,000 to his favourite Congressman, should that be banned because of what he does for a living?

Gonna nap for a bit...

[The Morg]

Talon, your research was funded by corporations right? Did you ever suspect the ``higher ups'' were involved in bribery or corruption?

For me, the suspicion was ever-present, but Hanlon's razor prevailed in the majority of cases.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Talon87

Disallowing it would only mean you drive it completely from public view. As it stands, many deals are done privately. Make it illegal to lobby publically and they'll just all go private. Illegalizing lobbying is not going to make it go away.

Benefits like the ones you detailed for Perry are not unique to politics. In the hard sciences, research studies are often sponsored or co-sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies, agriculture companies, food companies, and so on. I was reading a paper today published by an Israeli team of biomedical researchers that had been sponsored by no fewer than five pharmaceutical companies, among them names you might recognize in Novartis and Bayer. Complicating matters, the chief scientist on the paper (i.e. the first name listed on the paper) admitted in the aptly-named "Conflicts of Interest" section of the paper that he had been on the advisory board to several of these companies and had received $500,000 in funding from one of them. This sort of thing can be very damaging in science. It is our gut instinct to not trust these studies for fear of interference from the companies and/or fear that the results are going to be altered to favor the interests of the companies' investors. When this is true, it's already bad. But when it's false, it can be bad too. It means that scientists are more inclined to turn down offers for funding from "Big Pharma" and others in order to preserve their image within the scientific community. That is to say, scientists will turn down the money because they're worried that just by accepting the money they'll lose everything they've worked hard to establish over the past 10-20 years. This means that potentially perfectly clean research funds are being turned down. This is obviously not good. In an ideal system, we could sort out clean money from dirty money. But it isn't an ideal system, unfortunately, and so the back-and-forth remains between those scientists who accept the funds and justify it by saying they're trying to find answers as rigorously as possible and those scientists who see that a paper was sponsored in part by [insert company name] and toss it into the discard pile. And just like with politics, you have to keep in mind: these are only the ones who report it. There are probably many research programs which receive partial funding from corporate interests and who don't report it for fear of the stigma that accepting corporate funding would bring.

While it can be a gray issue in science, I don't think it tends to be quite so gray with politics. That is to say, I think with politics the question of lobbying is closer to the "THIS IS AWFUL! " end of the spectrum than it is the "Why are we looking a gift horse in the mouth? " end. But I imagine it can be gray even in politics sometimes. Defense funding may be funded in part by Lockheed Martin or other aerospace companies who hope to carve out a portion of the returns (e.g. exclusive access to data gleaned from military prototypes testing). FDA studies which would benefit us all (by helping us to rule in or out numerous drug candidates for numerous diseases) might be funded in part by pharmaceutical companies who hope to gain something from the studies as well. For example, it can be in Eli Lilly's interest to fund an FDA study which scrutinizes Lilly's newest drug: because it costs the company less than funding the study completely in-house on their own, it brings the FDA seal of approval with it (assuming the drug passes), and/or it helps Lilly to promptly know to scuttle the project (assuming the drug fails). General Electric, Duke Energy, or any other number of energy companies may be motivated to fund a Department of Energy initiative to build greener houses if they think it'll help with their public relations. Can we really complain about GE helping to fund a cleaner tomorrow?

But as for congressmen getting kickbacks from companies because they vote a certain way? That's extremely questionable. Hard to justify why when I'm physically swaying in my seat from tiredness, so I'll wrap this post up here. But I don't think legislators should be allowed to receive kickbacks and such and that if they are caught they ought to be kicked out of office or severely penalized.

For the record, not trying to defend lobbying because I think it's great or something. I'm just trying to present the idea that I don't think prohibiting corporations from having a hand in helping out is necessarily any better than allowing them to do whatever the hell they want. Middle ground, people. We have to strike a middle ground. Lobbying, bad. Allowing corporations to donate to political entities (e.g. DoE, Defense, FDA, NASA)? Fine by me, provided it's held to the same standards we'd have for corporations donating funds to private enterprises. In science, my personal view is "don't accept funding from big companies" as it's not worth introducing the bias to your study perceived by the scientific community at large nor tarnishing your reputation as a lapdog of private interests. It's important to every scientist for his word to carry weight, to have value. But I do think it's a shame that we as scientists cannot accept funding from corporations while we can accept it from taxpayers (i.e. federal funding). It would be nice to be able to accept it from both.

I have to agree with Talon for the most part. Lobbying is a double edged sword. On the one hand it allows people to promote their beliefs to Politicians who will then, once voted in, work to enact legislation according to the will of the people. But on the other hand, it allows greedy organizations (which do not have to be "Evil" Corporations mind you), to influence politicians to enact legislation in the organizations benefit. (For example, Green Energy and Environmentalists groups).

IMO, the solution would be, to make Lobbying and donations even more public, and remove all restrictions on it.
Why?
Because then the actual Voters (Corporations and Organizations can't vote), will see who is getting the how much money from where. If they have suspicions about the organization's agenda, or feel the candidate will not follow with the voter's ideals, they can vote against it.

Also, regarding Scientists getting federal grants, who's to say those grants are not just as much biased as a cooperation's donations? If Scientists want truly unbiased money, they'd have to appeal directly to the Citizens for donations, instead of getting it filtered through Big Brother's "National Interests."

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by unownmew

Also, regarding Scientists getting federal grants, who's to say those grants are not just as much biased as a cooperation's donations? If Scientists want truly unbiased money, they'd have to appeal directly to the Citizens for donations, instead of getting it filtered through Big Brother's "National Interests."

How are the grants "biased"? I know what you're trying to argue philosophically -- that government money may produce scientific results which further government's agenda -- but the philosophy doesn't match up with the reality. The government is not an owner of patents or a producer of commercial products in the same way / to the extent that corporations are and so the government has no interest in whether or not a particular scientific study pans or praises a product. If I write a paper which shows that a particular drug increases the chances of developing ocular cancer by 300%, the government doesn't care one way or the other. If you want to argue that the politicians have been bought off by the company who markets that drug and that for that reason they would be against such a study's results being published, well, then you've effectively reduced the problem back down to corporate interference, not federal. The only people who stand to lose from a study showing that a product is dangerous are the makers of said product. This is why corporate money funding a paper which shows that a product made by that company is safe is automatically shady -- and it's the same exact reason why federal money funding a study on the same product has no bearing whatsoever on the paper's validity. (Again: if it does have bearing, then it's because you've reduced the problem back down to politicians being bought off by companies, i.e. once again the problem is that of a particular company not wanting the damaging results of the study to go public.)

At the end of the day, the government can't "sell" (so to speak) a broken product and so it is in the government's very own best interests to make sure that they know whether something works or doesn't work. This is why the Department of Defense will be happy to know that a study done by MIT researchers shows that a particular metal alloy currently used in tanks deployed in Iraq is highly corrosive and eats through neighboring materials at a particular rate. They want to know that sort of thing so they can (a) nip it in the bud quickly in existing models and (b) remove it from the design of newer models altogether. This is in contrast with the aims of some (not all) corporations who, unlike government, actually do have the ability to sell a defective product. Why? Because they aren't the end users of said product. If I don't have diabetes, what do I care if the diabetes drug I make causes liver cancer in 30% of African-American males? If I don't have heart disease, what do I care if the contraceptive I'm pushing out increases the risk of coronary thrombosis by up to 75% in women? Basically, because they don't have a vested interest in the efficacy of their own product -- only in its success or failure as a commercial product, i.e. its ability to fly off the store shelves -- they enjoy a "luxury" (if you will) not enjoyed by the federal government. And this luxury is the primary reason why corporate funding is sketchy (particularly when it shows results favorable to the company) but that federal funding is not.

In short, I see what you're trying to argue philosophically ("if Big Corporations can do it, then why not Big Brother?") but it doesn't work that way in reality because of the fundamental differences between government and corporations.

[unownmew]

I would argue, that yes, a Government can not sell a product, and therefore cooperate interests can not be furthered by a shady grant. However, Government can sell "ideas," and stands in the way of a huge amount of increased power it can legislate for itself based on those ideas. In fact, I would say that Government as it is now, is actually in the business of selling ideas, while corporations are in the business of selling goods and services.

A politician agrees with a particular lobbying non-coporate organization's ideals, and receives money from that organization, not to convince him to look their way, but because he's already deep in with that set of ideals, which he then spends in a manner he can claims is in line with his election campaign (buying a private jet so he can travel to the various states to campaign in for example, or funding libel and slander attacks on his opponents).

Once elected, he pushes his way to get the ideas he agrees with, which are the same as the organizations' that paid him. This legislation can range from personal grants to his own pocket, or to funneling funds the organizations he agrees with so that they can grow and become more powerful, and in turn support his next election even better, or to punishing organizations he does not agree with by imposing restrictions that will cost them more money to operate. He doesn't even have to do these things overtly, he simply needs to require certain things which seem harmless enough, but in actuality, only benefit the organizations he's friendly with.

Under normal circumstances such legislation would be revealed, and the politician exposed, but, when they can work under the guise of "Solving a Terrible Problem," and "Nothing else can work," the Politician can sell his "ideas" and corruption gets all sorts of disguises it can hide behind. Global Warming, Universal Healthcare, Green Energy, Banning off-shore Oil Drilling, ect. Are all these things truly necessary? And does the legislation actually address the issues? Or are they just disguises to increase government power over it's citizens, with a fancy name that makes it sound like it's helping? Furthering the way for a Dictator to eventually take over and abolish our Republic?

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by unownmew

In fact, I would say that Government as it is now, is actually in the business of selling ideas, while corporations are in the business of selling goods and services.

I disagree. I'm curious, why do you think the government as a whole is in the business of selling ideas? Certainly there are branches of the government which are, though I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to or not. NASA immediately comes to mind, but typically they are trying to sell their ideas to the legislative branch for government funding on whatever idea it is they're pitching. As for corporations, there are some that would be against whatever the idea pitched was, for whatever reason. Maybe it would create unwanted competition, maybe it would interfere with their plans. Thankfully for them, though, all they need to do is write a check, pull aside however many congressmen or senators, and say "hey look. We like you. We want to donate to your campaigns, because hey, we're cool like that *hugs*. All we want you to do in return is review this upcoming funding vote and vote against it. We have the argument already made as to why it's bad, you just have to run with it!"


Right away, you'll have a few of those guys turn around and walk away, but then you'll have the few who are the ones saying "Add another zero to that check you've got yourself a deal", because let's face it, we're all human, we all love money, and almost anyone can be bought for the right price.

A politician agrees with a particular lobbying non-corporate organization's ideals, and receives money from that organization, not to convince him to look their way, but because he's already deep in with that set of ideals, which he then spends in a manner he can claims is in line with his election campaign (buying a private jet so he can travel to the various states to campaign in for example, or funding libel and slander attacks on his opponents).

This happens, but it doesn't happen as often as the organizations and corporations who try lobbying with politicians who are against they're ideals. Why would you need to give money to someone who already genuinely believes in your stance and is going to vote in your favor either way? It just doesn't happen as often. Sure, it most certainly does, but they're more worried about stopping the politicians who would favor against them.

Once elected, he pushes his way to get the ideas he agrees with, which are the same as the organizations' that paid him. This legislation can range from personal grants to his own pocket, or to funneling funds the organizations he agrees with so that they can grow and become more powerful, and in turn support his next election even better, or to punishing organizations he does not agree with by imposing restrictions that will cost them more money to operate. He doesn't even have to do these things overtly, he simply needs to require certain things which seem harmless enough, but in actuality, only benefit the organizations he's friendly with.

Again, I disagree. You will find a majority of legislators will not be paying organizations unless it is one they are really passionate about. Even the 'hey, I'm going to give you money, and you give me money when I'm up for re-relection, okay?' doesn't happen like you suggest it does. Legislators are given money, and in return, corporations are essentially speaking and voting through the representative, not the other way around.

Under normal circumstances such legislation would be revealed, and the politician exposed, but, when they can work under the guise of "Solving a Terrible Problem," and "Nothing else can work," the Politician can sell his "ideas" and corruption gets all sorts of disguises it can hide behind. Global Warming, Universal Healthcare, Green Energy, Banning off-shore Oil Drilling, ect. Are all these things truly necessary? And does the legislation actually address the issues? Or are they just disguises to increase government power over it's citizens, with a fancy name that makes it sound like it's helping? Furthering the way for a Dictator to eventually take over and abolish our Republic?

All of the things you mentioned are interests that many different organizations and companies have. Also, this

Or are they just disguises to increase government power over it's citizens, with a fancy name that makes it sound like it's helping? Furthering the way for a Dictator to eventually take over and abolish our Republic?

is really narrow minded. I know you're a Tea Partier, and that is essentially the belief of the tea party, but that is wrong. It's also funny because the 'leaders' of the tea party are also bought and paid for, so they will say whatever their money tells them to. Besides, all of that is just a bunch of scare tactics. It won't ever happen and I can't believe people think it will. And before you think I'm biased, I'm not. Believe me when I say I've listened to a very large amount of Glenn Beck, in fact, I've met the man. I'm sorry though, what he and people like him say simply isn't the truth and it's harmful to listen to. But we can open up a Tea Party debate thread for that, although like Talon said, I am not sure if it's worth it.

Basically, all of the things you mentioned have groups that are obviously for and against them. Let's use your 'banning offshore drilling' as an example. There is obviously a movement by environmentalists and others to do this, and there are obviously a great deal of politicians who believe it to be wrong, especially after what happened with the oil spill last year. Now, companies like BP and Mobil obviously don't want that to happen, because it would damage their business model. So they jump in and start lobbying with many legislators like crazy to stop it. Then you have interested parties on the opposite side of the spectrum, such as those who do want offshore drilling banned because it would help them, namely alternate power companies, who lobby politicians to vote for a ban. The same thing goes for a universal health system, medical insurance companies were scrambling like crazy to lobby against it, because if it passed, it would utterly cripple their corporations. The same thing happened in 1937 when the cotton industry lobbied to have marijuana taxed and eventually made illegal. Green energy? Same there. You have corps and organizations, again, on both sides of the aisle who lobby for and against restrictions, and this also ties in to a degree with the banning offshore drilling issue, too.

TL;DR - Money is power.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by deoxys

I disagree. I'm curious, why do you think the government as a whole is in the business of selling ideas? Certainly there are branches of the government which are, though I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to or not. NASA immediately comes to mind, but typically they are trying to sell their ideas to the legislative branch for government funding on whatever idea it is they're pitching. As for corporations, there are some that would be against whatever the idea pitched was, for whatever reason. Maybe it would create unwanted competition, maybe it would interfere with their plans. Thankfully for them, though, all they need to do is write a check, pull aside however many congressmen or senators, and say "hey look. We like you. We want to donate to your campaigns, because hey, we're cool like that *hugs*. All we want you to do in return is review this upcoming funding vote and vote against it. We have the argument already made as to why it's bad, you just have to run with it!"

Maybe not Government as a whole, but, various political entities. The President sells his ideas in speeches to the people, so they don't outrage at the new and otherwise ridiculous regulations, and then the legislators that agree with his ideas, put together their bill, sweetening the pot for those who would otherwise vote no, and enacts (for example) government regulation 101 saying you can no longer use the incandescent bulb, but instead must use "power saving" alternatives, which on the surface appear to be "green" but really filthy up the environment by containing Mercury. Go figure.

This happens, but it doesn't happen as often as the organizations and corporations who try lobbying with politicians who are against they're ideals. Why would you need to give money to someone who already genuinely believes in your stance and is going to vote in your favor either way? It just doesn't happen as often. Sure, it most certainly does, but they're more worried about stopping the politicians who would favor against them.

No? Politician A promises benefits to organization B in return for financial support in his election, Polititican A is elected, legislates money to organization B, as well as legislation corresponding it's platform. Organization B is now loyal to Politician A, and will continue to support him as he funnels money to them so they can continue to lobby other politicians who disagree with their platform.

Again, I disagree. You will find a majority of legislators will not be paying organizations unless it is one they are really passionate about. Even the 'hey, I'm going to give you money, and you give me money when I'm up for re-relection, okay?' doesn't happen like you suggest it does. Legislators are given money, and in return, corporations are essentially speaking and voting through the representative, not the other way around.

The legislators are paying the organizations with our Tax Dollars, not their own funds. Why in the world would a politician of that sort spend his own money for votes, when he can spend ours for them?

Corperations and Organizations are the same in this area, they're all in bed together for greater power dominance.

All of the things you mentioned are interests that many different organizations and companies have. Also, this is really narrow minded. I know you're a Tea Partier, and that is essentially the belief of the tea party, but that is wrong. It's also funny because the 'leaders' of the tea party are also bought and paid for, so they will say whatever their money tells them to. Besides, all of that is just a bunch of scare tactics. It won't ever happen and I can't believe people think it will. And before you think I'm biased, I'm not. Believe me when I say I've listened to a very large amount of Glenn Beck, in fact, I've met the man. I'm sorry though, what he and people like him say simply isn't the truth and it's harmful to listen to. But we can open up a Tea Party debate thread for that, although like Talon said, I am not sure if it's worth it.

I dunno who you're getting your information, but as far as I'm aware, TEA partiers are all volunteers, and any donations they do get, is for furthering the cause. There are no "Leaders" of the TEA party, it's a genuine grass roots movement.
As for "scare tactics," I'd like to know what kind the TEA party is using?
your own vice president called us terrorist, and numerous others are saying we want to deny old people of their social security checks. Besides being an outright LIE, those are scare tactics, coming from our opponents, not us. Every genuine TEA partier is for Peaceful change in a respectful manner.

I think a TEA party debate would be good, so I can clear up some misinformation that's been being spread about us.

Basically, all of the things you mentioned have groups that are obviously for and against them. Let's use your 'banning offshore drilling' as an example. There is obviously a movement by environmentalists and others to do this, and there are obviously a great deal of politicians who believe it to be wrong, especially after what happened with the oil spill last year. Now, companies like BP and Mobil obviously don't want that to happen, because it would damage their business model. So they jump in and start lobbying with many legislators like crazy to stop it. Then you have interested parties on the opposite side of the spectrum, such as those who do want offshore drilling banned because it would help them, namely alternate power companies, who lobby politicians to vote for a ban. The same thing goes for a universal health system, medical insurance companies were scrambling like crazy to lobby against it, because if it passed, it would utterly cripple their corporations. The same thing happened in 1937 when the cotton industry lobbied to have marijuana taxed and eventually made illegal. Green energy? Same there. You have corps and organizations, again, on both sides of the aisle who lobby for and against restrictions, and this also ties in to a degree with the banning offshore drilling issue, too.

TL;DR - Money is power.

Yup, Money is Power, and Government is money.

[Selena]

Originally Posted by unownmew

Maybe not Government as a whole, but, various political entities. The President sells his ideas in speeches to the people, so they don't outrage at the new and otherwise ridiculous regulations, and then the legislators that agree with his ideas, put together their bill, sweetening the pot for those who would otherwise vote no, and enacts (for example) government regulation 101 saying you can no longer use the incandescent bulb, but instead must use "power saving" alternatives, which on the surface appear to be "green" but really filthy up the environment by containing Mercury. Go figure.

Which is solved by recycling them (or at least collecting them) after their use, instead of throwing them away. Also LED-light.

I dunno who you're getting your information, but as far as I'm aware, TEA partiers are all volunteers, and any donations they do get, is for furthering the cause. There are no "Leaders" of the TEA party, it's a genuine grass roots movement.

I believe Sarah Pallin asks a whole lot of money for a speech. And I somehow seriously doubt that she's spending that on the Tea Party. Might be wrong on this though, but my local newspaper said so one time. And before you say it's politically charged, I live in the Netherlands so our newspapers couldn't care less about American politics.

As for "scare tactics," I'd like to know what kind the TEA party is using?
your own vice president called us terrorist, and numerous others are saying we want to deny old people of their social security checks. Besides being an outright LIE, those are scare tactics, coming from our opponents, not us. Every genuine TEA partier is for Peaceful change in a respectful manner.

Pot, kettle, black. Both sides use scare tactics.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by milotic111

Which is solved by recycling them (or at least collecting them) after their use, instead of throwing them away. Also LED-light.

You can recycle those lights? Where? Maybe Obama should have notified us of that, this is the first I've heard of it. What's the point in collecting dead bubs? Personally I prefer the Edison Bulb, but I heard those are going to be (or already are) outlawed.
Also, LED is Expensive.

I believe Sarah Pallin asks a whole lot of money for a speech. And I somehow seriously doubt that she's spending that on the Tea Party. Might be wrong on this though, but my local newspaper said so one time. And before you say it's politically charged, I live in the Netherlands so our newspapers couldn't care less about American politics.

Sarah Palin, after having been the running mate of the runner-up Presidential Candidate of 2008, is now a political figure, not a TEA party leader, though she does have the same views as TEA partiers, and is likely asked to speak at many of their events. Despite being Eviscerated by the left, they can't make her step down like other political figures that want to be 'liked' by the media, which pisses them off.

As for what she spends her money on, that's her business, since she's not claiming to use it support anything or anyone.

Pot, kettle, black. Both sides use scare tactics.

Yes, but the left, much much MUCH more often then the Right. If you listen to any of the Right's media outlets, the only "scaring" tactics, they use, are actual facts.

[Princess Ana]

The problem with lobbying is that the normal American can not lobby. It is against the law people to contribute to campaigns, they set up a "seperate" fund for that kind of stuff. And when campaigns runs in the figure of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, the average American has no chance to be heard. And, we still have cigarette's, we rely on oil and do not try to become independent, and out educational system, health care, and other things that are essential to a working community are not working as they should.

Because of special interest parties that think they can buy politicians.

This is blaze giving his two cents.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by unownmew

Maybe not Government as a whole, but, various political entities. The President sells his ideas in speeches to the people, so they don't outrage at the new and otherwise ridiculous regulations, and then the legislators that agree with his ideas, put together their bill, sweetening the pot for those who would otherwise vote no, and enacts (for example) government regulation 101 saying you can no longer use the incandescent bulb, but instead must use "power saving" alternatives, which on the surface appear to be "green" but really filthy up the environment by containing Mercury. Go figure.

I had a feeling you were going to use the incandescent bulb as an example. Certainly there was lobbying involved in that, and I'm not entirely sure if any of it was controversial, but what is wrong exactly with green energy? Whether or not you believe in climate change or not, green energy is ALWAYS a good thing and should be something we strive for in terms of technologically evolving. The incandescent bulb is a fantastic alternative.

No? Politician A promises benefits to organization B in return for financial support in his election, Polititican A is elected, legislates money to organization B, as well as legislation corresponding it's platform. Organization B is now loyal to Politician A, and will continue to support him as he funnels money to them so they can continue to lobby other politicians who disagree with their platform.

Well of course that happens, but that's entirely different from what it sounded like you were going on about. You worded it more or less to make it sound like companies and organizations will support politicians to further their cause simply based on the fact that they are already in support of it, not because the politician promises them benefits. There are certainly symbiotic relationships between certain politicians and orgs/companies, and while some I suppose make sense, others don't, or should even be happening.

The legislators are paying the organizations with our Tax Dollars, not their own funds. Why in the world would a politician of that sort spend his own money for votes, when he can spend ours for them?

Corperations and Organizations are the same in this area, they're all in bed together for greater power dominance.

Source?

I dunno who you're getting your information, but as far as I'm aware, TEA partiers are all volunteers, and any donations they do get, is for furthering the cause. There are no "Leaders" of the TEA party, it's a genuine grass roots movement.
As for "scare tactics," I'd like to know what kind the TEA party is using?
your own vice president called us terrorist, and numerous others are saying we want to deny old people of their social security checks. Besides being an outright LIE, those are scare tactics, coming from our opponents, not us. Every genuine TEA partier is for Peaceful change in a respectful manner.

I think a TEA party debate would be good, so I can clear up some misinformation that's been being spread about us.

First of all. 'TEA party'. I know you've made mention that this stands for 'Taxed Enough Already', but it was originally not supposed to mean that. In fact, it was supposed to be just 'Tea Party', which is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping British tea taken from docked ships into the harbor. Anyway...

I don't know what "tea party" you're from because you're wrong about a number of things, and here's why. First of all, there's no misinformation being spread unless the tea party is wrong about their own movement. My mom is a die hard tea partier herself, so I'm quite aware of the movement and how it operates. Also, I've seen quite a lot of Fox News and somehow still have basic motor skills (I know, I don't get it either), and so there's no misinformation being spread save potentially on your side of the spectrum.

Second.

I dunno who you're getting your information, but as far as I'm aware, TEA partiers are all volunteers, and any donations they do get, is for furthering the cause. There are no "Leaders" of the TEA party, it's a genuine grass roots movement.

The donations for "furthering the cause" are just for donating to GOP candidates. Which is fine, obviously, that's what you guys believe in, and there's nothing wrong with doing that.

When you say there are no leaders, though, you are gravely mistaken. Many politicians have come out and made themselves out to be a leader. The original starter of the tea party movement believe it or not was Ron Paul, and then it picked up and took off into a completely different direction that he had intended. Now you have Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Eric Cantor, and John Boehner to name a few. And let's not forget about the influence the infamous Koch family has had on the movement.

As for "scare tactics," I'd like to know what kind the TEA party is using?
your own vice president called us terrorist, and numerous others are saying we want to deny old people of their social security checks. Besides being an outright LIE, those are scare tactics, coming from our opponents, not us.

The amount of wrong emanating from this post is mind boggling. I'll break this down, piece by piece for you.

>>"I'd like to know what kind the TEA party is using?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...I_story_1.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z2

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1217

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Par...eform_protests

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_645203.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_511433.html


This is just a few. I think I made my point, however. To be honest with you, when I originally referenced tea party scare tactics, I was also referring, on a rather broad scale, to Fox News and Glenn Beck as well, however, as much of an influence as they are on the Tea Party, I will not include their scare tactics here, unless you'd like me to? Because I will.

your own vice president called us terrorist, and numerous others are saying we want to deny old people of their social security checks.

First of all, is he not your Vice President, too, like it or not? I didn't like when Dick Cheney was VP, but whether I liked it or not, he was my Vice President. Referring to him as "your" is pretty weak. Also, whether he said that or not is still up in the air. It was allegedly reported by several media outlets that he did, and many others who were there are claiming it didn't happen. Also, it was supposed that he likened the tea party to economic terrorism. My opinion? It wouldn't surprise me if he did, and if it's true, I don't agree with it and it was wrong. However, his frustration is understandable. Tea party legislators almost destroyed the economy because they were being entirely unreasonable regarding the debt ceiling in the most irresponsible act of selfishness I think I've ever seen politicians put on display. In the article I linked to above, tea party Sen. Mitch McConnell said this regarding the debt deal:

Originally Posted by Sen. McConnell

"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting... Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done."

Also, if you're going to throw around that argument, I can think of plenty of times in which tea partiers and republicans likened democrats with terrorists. This one immediately comes to mind;

Originally Posted by George W. Bush’s treasury secretary Paul O’Neill on Democrats regarding the debt ceiling

The people who are threatening not to pass the debt ceiling are our version of al Qaeda terrorists. Really.

So it's not one sided. It's a dumb argument anyway, and name calling in politics on either side of the aisle is stupid and immature tactics. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of it and it's a dumb issue.

>>"others are saying we want to deny old people of their social security checks."

This is because, again, with the debt ceiling issue, the republicans and tea party was going to allow the country to default. See the above quote with McConnell again if you've forgotten already how republicans felt about that. If government checks didn't go out, it was basically a necessary evil in their eyes. And don't use the argument "Well, the democrats weren't giving enough." "Obama was trying to make us look bad" or "Obama was the one being selfish." No. None of those arguments work. Because they're WRONG. In fact, because of how much he gave into the tea party and republicans, many now see him as more of a republican than a democrat, which is hysterical. I'm not personally a fan of Obama myself, but even I can see the man has bent over backwards to the tea party to rid himself of this dumb illusion that he's some kind of communist dictator. He's basically spent more time trying to appeal to the tea party than his own party because of all of the bullshit. And, a bit off topic and a runaway sentence, but let's not forget about the horrid nature of the tea party politicians in Wisconsin earlier this year.


>> Besides being an outright LIE, those are scare tactics, coming from our opponents, not us.

I sincerely hope you have an open mind about all of this, as I did when I first started looking into the tea party movement myself. For the record, I regretfully voted for McCain in 2008, and I can assure you that today I am glad that he lost the race (truthfully, I wish I had written in Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich in on the ballot). But no, it isn't a lie. You just have... hopefully, had, your mind closed to it. It isn't a lie. It's true. You just need to look in the right places... if you're only getting your news from one source or a biased side of the spectrum, you're never going to be getting the full story. C-SPAN, NPR, News Hour on PBS, all are fantastic places to find your news unbiased, although many will tell you NPR is left leaning as a whole when they are in fact not, simply because they have no benefit from leaning one way or the other as they are a publicly run news source. If you still don't believe that, check this out. They've been accused of actually having been right wing bias, which many seem to completely over look.


>>Every genuine TEA partier is for Peaceful change in a respectful manner.

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of every other tea partier shouting "REVOLT WITH YOUR GUNS" in my ear



Whew. I'm going to go eat and not think about politics anymore...!

Originally Posted by blazeVA

This is blaze giving his two cents.

FTFY

[Selena]

Originally Posted by unownmew

You can recycle those lights? Where? Maybe Obama should have notified us of that, this is the first I've heard of it. What's the point in collecting dead bubs? Personally I prefer the Edison Bulb, but I heard those are going to be (or already are) outlawed.
Also, LED is Expensive.

I don't know about the US, but here we collect them and take out the Mecury and other stuff that's harmful to the enviroment and use them (the mecury and other stuff that is) again. Of course not all people to that, but most do. (you have to consider them chemical waste here basically). As for LED, they're expensive now yes. However two things that not many people see. They are supposed to last at least 30 years. Even if they last just 15 (maybe 10 or even 5, too lazy to look it up) they have paid themself back because of lower electricity bills. Also when more people use they will become cheaper.

Please note that here the Edison bulb has just been completely outlawed (the higher Watt were already outlawed) and no major disaster has happened. Alternative lights work just as well, and are only a little but more expensive (well LED considerably I'll admit), and they pay themselves back.

[deoxys]

Let me cut in here really quick to say that LED lighting is getting cheaper. It's still a work in progress, but even at it's current rate it's worth it, simply because an LED light is going to last you tens of thousands more hours than a regular bulb, not to mention the cost of energy intake is much better for them.

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by deoxys

Let me cut in here really quick to say that LED lighting is getting cheaper. It's still a work in progress, but even at it's current rate it's worth it, simply because an LED light is going to last you tens of thousands more hours than a regular bulb, not to mention the cost of energy intake is much better for them.

Incandescent bulbs are crap. They are energy inefficient, and also, they don't last for shit. And for the "mercury" inside of the fluorescent bulbs, unownmew, there is not enough mercury in one bulb to cause any sort of damage. The amount is very minimal. LED cost more, but they last much longer than the other two, and are more energy efficient than incandescent. They pay for themselves, much like solar and wind power do.

But wasn't this about lobbying?

[Selena]

Originally Posted by blazeVA

Incandescent bulbs are crap. They are energy inefficient, and also, they don't last for shit. And for the "mercury" inside of the fluorescent bulbs, unownmew, there is not enough mercury in one bulb to cause any sort of damage. The amount is very minimal. LED cost more, but they last much longer than the other two, and are more energy efficient than incandescent. They pay for themselves, much like solar and wind power do.

But wasn't this about lobbying?

Actually agreeing with unownmew here, one fluorescent bulb may not contain enough mercury to to damage, but when thrown away in large numbers they WILL cause damage. That's why we collect them here.

Also lobbying, we don't have problems with that here:P So entirely your problem.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by deoxys

I had a feeling you were going to use the incandescent bulb as an example. Certainly there was lobbying involved in that, and I'm not entirely sure if any of it was controversial, but what is wrong exactly with green energy? Whether or not you believe in climate change or not, green energy is ALWAYS a good thing and should be something we strive for in terms of technologically evolving. The incandescent bulb is a fantastic alternative.

Nothing's wrong with green energy, what's wrong, is forcing the people to accept it, based on iffy science, in an effort to make "Government Regulation" more and more acceptable to the public, so that when a Dictator finally takes over, people welcome him with Cheers, freely giving up their own liberties for "peace and safety." (Like what happens in Star Wars III)

Well of course that happens, but that's entirely different from what it sounded like you were going on about. You worded it more or less to make it sound like companies and organizations will support politicians to further their cause simply based on the fact that they are already in support of it, not because the politician promises them benefits. There are certainly symbiotic relationships between certain politicians and orgs/companies, and while some I suppose make sense, others don't, or should even be happening.

I believe all forms of corruption occur in Government, and it really doesn't matter what the details are, Government must be one regulated, not doing regulating.

Source?

Pork Bills. Read about them. Every single Dollar spent on "Federal" programs and bills comes out of our Tax Dollars. There's not a person alive that would pay for something themselves when they can use other people's money for it.

First of all. 'TEA party'. I know you've made mention that this stands for 'Taxed Enough Already', but it was originally not supposed to mean that. In fact, it was supposed to be just 'Tea Party', which is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping British tea taken from docked ships into the harbor. Anyway...

It evolved from that idea of the Boston Tea Party, but when I was first made aware of it, it was already an Acronym.

I don't know what "tea party" you're from because you're wrong about a number of things, and here's why. First of all, there's no misinformation being spread unless the tea party is wrong about their own movement. My mom is a die hard tea partier herself, so I'm quite aware of the movement and how it operates. Also, I've seen quite a lot of Fox News and somehow still have basic motor skills (I know, I don't get it either), and so there's no misinformation being spread save potentially on your side of the spectrum.

If you read what I said about being a TEA partier, you'd know I also said, I'm not an official member, but simply proscribe to their core ideals. So, since you know how it operates, please educate me.

The donations for "furthering the cause" are just for donating to GOP candidates. Which is fine, obviously, that's what you guys believe in, and there's nothing wrong with doing that.

When you say there are no leaders, though, you are gravely mistaken. Many politicians have come out and made themselves out to be a leader. The original starter of the tea party movement believe it or not was Ron Paul, and then it picked up and took off into a completely different direction that he had intended. Now you have Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Eric Cantor, and John Boehner to name a few. And let's not forget about the influence the infamous Koch family has had on the movement.

Simply because someone says they are a leader, doesn't make them so. The Left media would rather people think Rush Limbaugh was the official TEA party, and Republican leader, but he's not, nor does he claim to be. He's simply an entertainer who also keeps people informed of the issues, from a conservative standpoint.
The politicians you named, are simply the Candidates that the TEA party would support, that have sway, no doubt, but they are not the leaders. As I said, the TEA party is a grass roots movement based off of certain common ideals, mostly local, with some national ties. I could start my own separate TEA party event in my town, and, so long as it promotes the same ideals as the TEA party, with the same goal, TEA partiers would attend.

Who is the Koch family?

The amount of wrong emanating from this post is mind boggling. I'll break this down, piece by piece for you.

>>"I'd like to know what kind the TEA party is using?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...I_story_1.html

I saw no scare tactics here, except the threat of US default, which has always been the left's call. Even if nothing had been reached, the Government would NOT have defaulted, in fact, it would have FORCED the government to make some serious spending cuts, in order to stay running, which the government seriously needs.
As far as I'm aware, the TEA partiers are pretty pissed at this deal, which essentially does nothing but give Obama a giant check for more spending.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z2

The same here, the left scaring people against the TEA party senators by saying they are "set on forcing the Government to default."
Which again, is a total lie, as the Government would NOT default, so long as it were to determine to CUT IT'S MASSIVE AND UNNECESSARY SPENDING. Which requires the Deomcrats, who control the senate, to do so. If Nation defaulted, it would be the fault of the democrats refusing to cut spending.

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1217

The Republican GOP is not affiliated with the TEA party in any way, and would rather the TEA party disbanded completely.

There's no question that the Obama-as-Joker image—long a familiar icon at Tea Party rallies—is a toxic association for the GOP establishment. Oddly enough, though, that image's origins can be traced to the activist left

I have my doubts of this. I've been to a TEA party rally before, and this image was nowhere to be seen. and IMO, any TEA party activity that were to portray such a thing, would not be a real TEA party activity. Since you know more about the inner workings, please tell, is this image frequent in their rallies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Par...eform_protests

So a couple of people claim that a couple of people assumed to be TEA partiers, were terribly disrespectful at a rally. I have my suspicions about some of the claims, and have even greater doubts about the people who did it being actual TEA partiers. It wouldn't be the first time the left tried to infiltrate peaceful gatherings to stir up hostility and create a bad reputation for the people they hate (conservatives). It's not like we "prevent" people from coming by checking their backgrounds and voting history.
Even if you dismiss the possiblity of a leftist implant (organized or not), you can not claim the entire party prescribes to those ideals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_645203.html

roughly 200-person group

"That's just a waste of money, time, resources and it's not going to further our cause," said Shelby Blakely, a leaders of the Tea Party Patriots, a national group. "It's not going to help our cause. It's going to make people think that the tea party is full of a bunch of right-wing fringe people, and that's not true."

As the TEA party is not a nationally organized political entity, individuals are not prevented from doing what they feel is needed. I do not agree with their choice, and neither do many other TEA partiers.
The message of socialism however, remains a fact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_511433.html

LOL? That's just charged rhetoric, there's absolutely no hint of actual threat to their lives, she's aiming to get them out of politics, not to kill them.
Granted, I can see where it could be a bit overcharged.

This is just a few. I think I made my point, however. To be honest with you, when I originally referenced tea party scare tactics, I was also referring, on a rather broad scale, to Fox News and Glenn Beck as well, however, as much of an influence as they are on the Tea Party, I will not include their scare tactics here, unless you'd like me to? Because I will.

Include Rush Limbaugh's Scare tactics please, I'm quite curious as to how I could have missed them when I listen to him often.

First of all, is he not your Vice President, too, like it or not? I didn't like when Dick Cheney was VP, but whether I liked it or not, he was my Vice President. Referring to him as "your" is pretty weak. Also, whether he said that or not is still up in the air. It was allegedly reported by several media outlets that he did, and many others who were there are claiming it didn't happen. Also, it was supposed that he likened the tea party to economic terrorism. My opinion? It wouldn't surprise me if he did, and if it's true, I don't agree with it and it was wrong. However, his frustration is understandable. Tea party legislators almost destroyed the economy because they were being entirely unreasonable regarding the debt ceiling in the most irresponsible act of selfishness I think I've ever seen politicians put on display. In the article I linked to above, tea party Sen. Mitch McConnell said this regarding the debt deal:

Yeah, he's my VP, I don't like it, but the only thing I can do is vote against him. Regardless, saying he was your VP was not incorrect.

I'd like to see some evidence of this "destruction of the economy," besides claims that we were going to force the Government to default, which is, plain and simple, an outright lie.

Also, if you're going to throw around that argument, I can think of plenty of times in which tea partiers and republicans likened democrats with terrorists. This one immediately comes to mind;

So it's not one sided. It's a dumb argument anyway, and name calling in politics on either side of the aisle is stupid and immature tactics. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of it and it's a dumb issue.

If you're referring to something that was said during Bush's presidency, consider this, he wanted the ceiling raised so he could spend more on defense, to help us win the war quicker, with fewer casualties. Those who are against ending war quickly and lowering the casualty count? Make your own decision, but I consider that treason.

>>"others are saying we want to deny old people of their social security checks."

This is because, again, with the debt ceiling issue, the republicans and tea party was going to allow the country to default. See the above quote with McConnell again if you've forgotten already how republicans felt about that. If government checks didn't go out, it was basically a necessary evil in their eyes. And don't use the argument "Well, the democrats weren't giving enough." "Obama was trying to make us look bad" or "Obama was the one being selfish." No. None of those arguments work. Because they're WRONG. In fact, because of how much he gave into the tea party and republicans, many now see him as more of a republican than a democrat, which is hysterical. I'm not personally a fan of Obama myself, but even I can see the man has bent over backwards to the tea party to rid himself of this dumb illusion that he's some kind of communist dictator. He's basically spent more time trying to appeal to the tea party than his own party because of all of the bullshit. And, a bit off topic and a runaway sentence, but let's not forget about the horrid nature of the tea party politicians in Wisconsin earlier this year.

Concerning the default, you have some seriously misinformed facts there. There is no way the Government would default if the debt ceiling was not raised. Social Security checks BY LAW would have HAD to have gone out, even if the government had shut down. Those are some of the intricacies of the government you seem not to be aware of. The ONLY reason checks would not have gone out, would be if Obama himself REFUSED to sign them, or if he chose to sign checks to some other entity instead, using up the money that was left over.

Also, let me introduce you to a well kept, sneaky little secret of the US Government, it's called BASELINE BUDGETING. Basically it works like this:
By law, the budget is automatically increased for federal programs already in existence (nonnegotiable), based on the amount of money they USED (not needed, USED), the previous year.
This is meant to allow for growth based on the agency's needs. However, once the agency receives it's money, if it were to send back the excess money it didn't need that year, it would be given less money the next year, so instead of losing out on all this delicious money, it "spends" it in whatever way it can, so that it can get as much increase the next year as possible.

All these "DRASTIC CUTS" in the federal budget, don't even TOUCH the baseline, and therefore, all it does it reduce growth in the coming years, it doesn't slash anything RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW. Social Security/medicare/medicaide/Military pay/etc. checks would keep going out for quite some time, unless of course, the president refuses to sign them.

>> Besides being an outright LIE, those are scare tactics, coming from our opponents, not us.

I sincerely hope you have an open mind about all of this, as I did when I first started looking into the tea party movement myself. For the record, I regretfully voted for McCain in 2008, and I can assure you that today I am glad that he lost the race (truthfully, I wish I had written in Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich in on the ballot). But no, it isn't a lie. You just have... hopefully, had, your mind closed to it. It isn't a lie. It's true. You just need to look in the right places... if you're only getting your news from one source or a biased side of the spectrum, you're never going to be getting the full story. C-SPAN, NPR, News Hour on PBS, all are fantastic places to find your news unbiased, although many will tell you NPR is left leaning as a whole when they are in fact not, simply because they have no benefit from leaning one way or the other as they are a publicly run news source. If you still don't believe that, check this out. They've been accused of actually having been right wing bias, which many seem to completely over look.

*Chokes up laughing*
A FEDERALLY PAID News Program is unbiased?!?!
Public Fundings means, paid for by your taxdollars by the Government. Government, by definition, is biased.
Also, your source seems to be lacking it's citations there. ;)

>>Every genuine TEA partier is for Peaceful change in a respectful manner.

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of every other tea partier shouting "REVOLT WITH YOUR GUNS" in my ear

I've not heard them, where do you hear these? I've seen a bunch of immature comments like those at the bottom of news stories, personally, I think they're nuts, and they make us look bad. They have no bearing on the TEA party's goals of peaceful "revolution" by changing the "established" members of congress through voting them out, and voting new ones in.


However, I do have to say that, if peaceful revolution fails, the only option would be, Dictator, or Armed Revolution, akin to the American Revolution against Britain in 1776. (Which is why the left is so keen on preventing gun ownership, so they can't be ousted through peaceful or forceful means.)
Which side will you be on?

[deoxys]

So... So much wrong... NPR's funding was cut by the republicans after...ugh... and... oh dear, there's a lot you don't seem to grasp about your own movement....

You're such a very elaborate troll...

I'll be gone for the day but replying later tonight or tomorrow, although I don't know if I really want to based on the closed mindedness of your responses. It honestly took me two hours to reply before, not sure I want to do that again. Gah...

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by unownmew

Nothing's wrong with green energy, what's wrong, is forcing the people to accept it, based on iffy science, in an effort to make "Government Regulation" more and more acceptable to the public, so that when a Dictator finally takes over, people welcome him with Cheers, freely giving up their own liberties for "peace and safety." (Like what happens in Star Wars III)

If you're referring to something that was said during Bush's presidency, consider this, he wanted the ceiling raised so he could spend more on defense, to help us win the war quicker, with fewer casualties. Those who are against ending war quickly and lowering the casualty count? Make your own decision, but I consider that treason.

1) The science behind flourescent bulbs is not iffy. Seriously, how far up your ass is your head? Just taking into account that you can lower watt bulbs for the same affect as higher watt bulbs automatically makes them energy effiencent. And green. And if a country wants to take steps to make itself greener, especially since the US is one of the only countries NOT to try to lower CO2 emissions, I see no problem with it. And it is not making government control more appeal able, it actually trying to do it right. A lot of other countries have regulations in these area's and they are more Democratic than we are.

Those who are against ending war quickly and lowering the casualty count? Make your own decision, but I consider that treason.

Must I add that this war is a direct result of the first Persian Gulf war, which was fought for purely economic reasons? This war is pointless. It has gone on for too long and we need to get out troops out of there, otherwise there will be more causalities. And the money towards defense has done nothing, has it? 1 Trillion dollars for NOTHING. We spent less money in World War II. And we won. Sorry, but I am seeing Vietnam all over again.

Actually agreeing with unownmew here, one fluorescent bulb may not contain enough mercury to to damage, but when thrown away in large numbers they WILL cause damage. That's why we collect them here.

Sorry, Milo, but this show how little you know about the stuff. Mercury does not exist on surface conditions in liquid form. It almost always evaporates, going into the atmosphere. Now matter how many you throw out, it will never reach levels high enough to actually cause damage. The only problem with mercury is when it is inhaled in a concentrated gas, and also when it is present in a organic compound, which will not happen in a landfill. Sorry, but I did a research paper on the stuff, and, florescent bulbs do not contain enough mercury to cause any sort of damage.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by blazeVA

1) The science behind flourescent bulbs is not iffy. Seriously, how far up your ass is your head? Just taking into account that you can lower watt bulbs for the same affect as higher watt bulbs automatically makes them energy effiencent. And green. And if a country wants to take steps to make itself greener, especially since the US is one of the only countries NOT to try to lower CO2 emissions, I see no problem with it. And it is not making government control more appeal able, it actually trying to do it right. A lot of other countries have regulations in these area's and they are more Democratic than we are.

Not fluorescent bulbs being iffy science, Global Warming and the "requirement" for green energy, being iffy science. Nothing wrong with greater efficiency, but when it's being forced on the public, that is all sorts of wrong, regardless of the reason being correct or not.

Government regulation can not, and never will be done right. When we give a little, they take a lot. That's what corruption does. And don't you dare tell me there is no corruption in government. There's much more evidence then needed that shows that when a government gets too big and too powerful, it starts abusing that power to the detriment of it's citizens. That's not speculation, that is outright Historic FACT. That's the entire reason America rebelled against Britain, and the entire reason our government was founded the way it was, to prevent that corruption from gaining hold, as much as the people prevented it.

Must I add that this war is a direct result of the first Persian Gulf war, which was fought for purely economic reasons? This war is pointless. It has gone on for too long and we need to get out troops out of there, otherwise there will be more causalities. And the money towards defense has done nothing, has it? 1 Trillion dollars for NOTHING. We spent less money in World War II. And we won. Sorry, but I am seeing Vietnam all over again.

I do not see how protecting America from militant extremest Jihadests, committed to their ideology so much they will die for it, who will not stop until all of America burns (or collapses in on itself), is a pointless war. Or was started by some other war. They have an ideal, they will carry it out. We did nothing to incite their hated, besides being a force of freedom in the world.
I'll agree some moves may seem strange, but, unless you're on the strategic board, and know all the reasons we move our troops where they are moved, you can say nothing about what is "pointless" and what is not.

If we pull out now it WILL BE another Vietnam. We should NEVER engage in a war we are not ABSOLUTELY committed 100% to WIN. To so do, puts millions of lives at risk for no reason, and makes the sacrifices of those who do die, worthless. IMO it is treason to engage in a war with the intent to LOSE. It is no different from sending those brave men and women to a national slaughter house simply to kill them. We must finish completely what was started, or we will only have to deal with worse down the road.

Sorry, Milo, but this show how little you know about the stuff. Mercury does not exist on surface conditions in liquid form. It almost always evaporates, going into the atmosphere. Now matter how many you throw out, it will never reach levels high enough to actually cause damage. The only problem with mercury is when it is inhaled in a concentrated gas, and also when it is present in a organic compound, which will not happen in a landfill. Sorry, but I did a research paper on the stuff, and, florescent bulbs do not contain enough mercury to cause any sort of damage.

I was not aware of that, I thought Mercury was the only metal that was liquid at room temperature, not a gas.

[Talon87]

You don't seem able to make up your mind between anarchy and the Tea Party. Half of your last post was completely anarchistic. You draw this very hard, very deep line, declaring that corruption in government is inescapable and that for this reason government ought never to be allowed to tell people what to do. LOL, government telling people what to do is government. If you want to completely strip them of every tooth and claw they have, then you are advocating anarchy. And while I don't particularly care about anarchism, I do care that you turn around in the same post and PRAISE THE TEA PARTY! That's just crazy talk. Doublethink. A sign, perhaps, of brainwashing and of very shallow thinking. You try to imply that Obama is evil because he attempts to govern, then you turn right back around and plug a political party that (whether you like it or not) is populated and led by those in this country MOST eager to pass legislation against gay marriage, gay adoption, stem cell research, abortion, and a host of other issues which, were you truly an anarchist, you would be disgusted that they're trying to push.

[Princess Ana]

Unown, I don't think you know how much regualtion has actually helped people and has been right. Even read the Jungle? If it was not for that book, we may as well be eating rats in our meats. Government regulation revolutionized the economy, industry, education, immigration, war, an many other things, mostly for the good, occasionally for the bad, because nothing is ever perfect. And not all people are going to take advantage of every little thing, there are governments with more government control that are perfectly fine. There is corruption in EVERY government, no matter how much control they have.

And what I meant about Vietnam is that we seem to be going nowhere. The Afghanistan has its ties with the Second Persian Gulf war, a result of the first Persian Gulf war. The first one was to keep Iraq out of Kuwait? No, that was not the reason. The reason was to keep Iraq out of Saudi Arabian oil fields. Economic all the way. And, both the Afghan and the Vietnam wars involve the United States government trying to push our government onto other people. Because, we Americans are ignorant assholes, and we are basically imperializing. Vietnam involved a weaker, less technologically advanced nation KICKING OUR ASS. Same here, though to a slightly lesser extent.

[Talon87]

The point about Vietnam and how we shouldn't pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan because too much has already been invested in these wars is an example of the sunk cost fallacy which says:

Originally Posted by http://sunk-cost.behaviouralfinance.net/

The sunk cost fallacy is manifested when we have a greater tendency to continue an endeavour once an investment in money, effort or time has been made.

The idea at play in the minds of the victims of this fallacy is, "We've already come this far. We may as well finish what we started." The problem is, it assumes that finishing what one started is always better than cutting one's losses. And this is not true. It has to be determined on a case-by-case basis whether more damage would be incurred by leaving now versus continuing to stay.

In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is unfortunately no way to predict the future. It could easily go any which way. Stay and be praised, stay and be condemned, leave and mend fences, leave and things go to hell even quicker. Any of these is possible. Current policy hopes for the first scenario to come true but with each passing day it seems that the second is what is playing out and now the only question is not if we leave but when we leave whether it'll be #3 or #4 which is how things ultimately play out.

Personally, I don't look at Iraq as a Sunk Cost situation in the first place. I brought that up because you seem to, as you have pointed to Vietnam and drawn comparisons saying "pulling out is wrong, we have to finish what we started." But in my opinion, the war was never justified and so we should have never invaded and should have immediately pulled out or made urgent arrangements to pull out when we finally ousted Bush from office. Serious charges of war crimes have been levied against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld and were it not for their privileged positions as important men of power in the most powerful country in the world, they would probably have been brought before the Hague long ago. In any event, reality is not so easy, we did invade, and given that we already invaded the question we must ask is "Do we play it selfish and call the troops home in a bid to cut government spending? or do we play it altruistic and stay, not as propper-uppers of an artificial regime but instead as UN and Red Cross-style aid [even as an armed military presence] who go from village to village vaccinating babies, installing burners or woodstoves in homes, teaching children how to read in their native languages, teaching the willing how to speak English in order to broaden their employment opportunities, etc?" I tend to like the latter. But unfortunately a lot of people here at home are saying "BRING THE TROOPS HOME!" not for the right reasons (we should never have been over there in the first place) but for the wrong reasons (selfish desire to cut federal spending in our country's greatest time of economic crisis since the Great Depression).

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by unownmew

We should NEVER engage in a war we are not ABSOLUTELY committed 100% to WIN. To so do, puts millions of lives at risk for no reason, and makes the sacrifices of those who do die, worthless. IMO it is treason to engage in a war with the intent to LOSE. It is no different from sending those brave men and women to a national slaughter house simply to kill them. We must finish completely what was started, or we will only have to deal with worse down the road.

And just like that, I have no reason to debate with you anymore. Not wasting my time with this.

Originally Posted by Talon87

... in my opinion, the war was never justified and so we should have never invaded and should have immediately pulled out or made urgent arrangements to pull out when we finally ousted Bush from office. Serious charges of war crimes have been levied against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld and were it not for their privileged positions as important men of power in the most powerful country in the world, they would probably have been brought before the Hague long ago.

So. Much. This.