|
dodge one wrote: I'm just a working stiff with no colledge education,and it takes me ages to type replys with my 2 finger typing skills. But i do like to weigh in a bit without fear of having everything that i offer an opinion on methodically ripped to shred's.
I'm really sorry you feel attacked. Believe me mate, I've no wish to attack you personally.
This board is for political discussion. People are - and should - talk respectfully but frankly and clearly about their political opinions. Because these are often people's deeply held emotional feelings, it can feel tough when someone disagrees.
But you, me, and everyone else are labouring under misapprehensions. There are things we think are facts that are untrue, there are ideas we have that don't make sense. If we're to shed these falshoods and develop, we've got to have these things challenged. If our ideas *can* be intelligently challenged then they *should* be.
That's the spirit that I write in and as far as I see it (barring a sharpness in response to the 9-11 thing) Jim too.
This forum is here to get our ideas thought through; it's a place to lock horns politically, but it's no place for insults and personal attacks. I'm sorry if the difference hasn't been clear enough up to now. I hope it will be in future.
So, on to the Obama funding thing
dodge one wrote: I'm sure they have sent as much or more to the Republican campaingers also..It's nought but butterin' bread on both sides.
Exactly! Thankyou! My point is proven!
If they're giving money to all the candidates it proves they don't do it out of genuine support. You can't politically back someone *and* their opponent. So, they're giving for some other reason.
What other possible reason is there except to buy favour with the winner?Whoever you vote for, Exxon gets in.
Obama is a Big Fossil man through and through. He can say 'clean coal' with a straight face. Either he doesn't understand the well-known basic science of climate change, or else he is willing to ignore it to protect Big Fossil profits. Either way, he should not be put in a position of power and certainly those who *do* understand the climate change imperative should not be actively supporting him.
In 1992 Al Gore wrote a book called Earth In The Balance. It explained climate change ten years before most of us had a working knowledge of it. It predicted things - more intense hurricanes hitting New Orleans, moving rainfall patterns in East Africa causing famine - that have come to pass. His recent film isn't bandwagon-jumping, he's known the score for longer than any of us.
The same year, he was running a campaign to get elected. Twenty-eight Big Fossil companies (including Obama funders Exxon and Chevron) gave to the Clinton-Gore election campaign.
Everyone laments the American response to the Kyoto treaty. But the Americans were actually at the treaty's negotiations. They went in there and insisted on a series of dilutions and loopholes which everyone agreed to because they wanted the Americans to stay on board. At the eleventh hour, having castrated the process as far as possible, they walked out.
Whose American government was that? Clinton's. Who was the man leading the American delegation at Kyoto, in charge of all this conspiracy to disaster? Al Gore.
What possible reason is there for this, expect he was beholden to the companies who bought him power?
When Clinton got in, Gore pushed for an energy tax that would hit coal hardest, and have a knock-on effect on gas and petrol. The Democrat Congress binned it. Even if Gore had a pet Mr Smith bill, the same companies had bought Congress too so what they said goes.
When Obama has a far, far weaker starting point than Gore, and the action required from the next president is far, far greater than Clinton, why would anyone actively chearlead for Obama?
|
