FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
First week of unrest in Turkey

First week of unrest in Turkey

(7:37) Summary of the events that took place in Taksim Square in Istanbul, Turkey. What started off as a peaceful demonstration against the building of a shopping mall in Gezi Park, a week later had escalated to riots in 67 cities throughout the country.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: TYT army (1900 days ago)
LINK PM Of Turkey Blames Protests On...
ReplyVote up (214)down (220)
Original comment
LINK PM Of Turkey Blames Protests On...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1900 days ago)
this is what happens when a religious right wing political party get's to fully implement their right wing religious policies in a predominantly secular nation.
ReplyVote up (205)down (217)
Original comment
this is what happens when a religious right wing political party get's to fully implement their right wing religious policies in a predominantly secular nation.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Blong Blong (1901 days ago)
This is what the US has to look forward to
ReplyVote up (180)down (214)
Original comment
This is what the US has to look forward to
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
The people injured under the crumbling wall had nothing to do with the police. The cause appeared to be too many trespassers climbing the wall at one time and the wall couldn't handle the load. The video says the police were out of control but is that the problem or were the citizens the ones out of control and the police were trying to maintain control. People protesting knew they were not supposed to be there. When the police showed up the first day and they continued to stay the second day, it was obvious they were not wanted in the future site of the mall. Plant your trees on your own land if you want them but don't hinder the progress of the country by refusing to have a mall created. That's just plain ridiculous. Tear gas and water canons are less than lethal and not considered extreme violence by the police. How else do you expect them to disban a mob? I suppose the best thing is to boycott the mall after it is created to show that you do not support it. Your money does the talking.
ReplyVote up (200)down (238)
Original comment
The people injured under the crumbling wall had nothing to do with the police. The cause appeared to be too many trespassers climbing the wall at one time and the wall couldn't handle the load. The video says the police were out of control but is that the problem or were the citizens the ones out of control and the police were trying to maintain control. People protesting knew they were not supposed to be there. When the police showed up the first day and they continued to stay the second day, it was obvious they were not wanted in the future site of the mall. Plant your trees on your own land if you want them but don't hinder the progress of the country by refusing to have a mall created. That's just plain ridiculous. Tear gas and water canons are less than lethal and not considered extreme violence by the police. How else do you expect them to disban a mob? I suppose the best thing is to boycott the mall after it is created to show that you do not support it. Your money does the talking.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1900 days ago)
Yes - and all those uppity black people in the USA should just have stayed out of the whites-only lunch counters. They knew they were not supposed to be there. They should just have boycotted and let their money do the talking. Quite right.
ReplyVote up (234)down (201)
Original comment
Yes - and all those uppity black people in the USA should just have stayed out of the whites-only lunch counters. They knew they were not supposed to be there. They should just have boycotted and let their money do the talking. Quite right.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
What does this have to do with my original comment? I never mentioned race; however, I'm not a racist but I believe any business should have the right to refuse to serve certain demographics of people if they want to. eHarmony only serves Christians. The Masters Golf Club does not allow black members. We are protected from some things such as employment and housing so you cannot discriminate with those. So if I want to refuse to serve any type of person in my business such as men, women, children, elderly, black, white, asian, hispanic, gay, straight, whatever, that is my concern.
ReplyVote up (198)down (222)
Original comment
What does this have to do with my original comment? I never mentioned race; however, I'm not a racist but I believe any business should have the right to refuse to serve certain demographics of people if they want to. eHarmony only serves Christians. The Masters Golf Club does not allow black members. We are protected from some things such as employment and housing so you cannot discriminate with those. So if I want to refuse to serve any type of person in my business such as men, women, children, elderly, black, white, asian, hispanic, gay, straight, whatever, that is my concern.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1900 days ago)
My original point was meant to highlight that peaceful protest can achieve positive things - even if the "forces of law and order" come in with a heavy hand. I disagree that they should let the mall get built then boycott it - that would mean they had lost their park and had it replaced with a disused mall. I'm surprised you're still allowed to have whites-only golf clubs - presumably Tiger Woods could not join
ReplyVote up (206)down (222)
Original comment
My original point was meant to highlight that peaceful protest can achieve positive things - even if the "forces of law and order" come in with a heavy hand. I disagree that they should let the mall get built then boycott it - that would mean they had lost their park and had it replaced with a disused mall. I'm surprised you're still allowed to have whites-only golf clubs - presumably Tiger Woods could not join
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
Regarding not building the mall, do you think it's fair that someone can buy land and then not develop on it because some trespassers will not leave the property? If those people wanted to keep the park, they could have purchased the land and kept the trees there but they didn't so someone else bought it. If I bought the land and tried to build something on it and people would not leave, I would call the police too. Regarding whites only golf, now that I research this further, it appears the rules may have been relaxed a bit for the Augusta memberships. They now allow women and Condoleezza Rice is one of them. She's black. This does not mean Tiger Woods is a member yet. I could not find him listed as a member.
ReplyVote up (192)down (218)
Original comment
Regarding not building the mall, do you think it's fair that someone can buy land and then not develop on it because some trespassers will not leave the property? If those people wanted to keep the park, they could have purchased the land and kept the trees there but they didn't so someone else bought it. If I bought the land and tried to build something on it and people would not leave, I would call the police too. Regarding whites only golf, now that I research this further, it appears the rules may have been relaxed a bit for the Augusta memberships. They now allow women and Condoleezza Rice is one of them. She's black. This does not mean Tiger Woods is a member yet. I could not find him listed as a member.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
well if someone should want to buy Yellowstone park and build a cow ranch/slaughterhouse on it, the police would be entitled to crack down on the protesters who oppose the building of the cow ranch/slaughterhouse, because , to follow your logic "if they would have wanted the park to stay the way it is, they would have bought it for themselves", right? the Yellowstone protesters have no right to protest the "legal" selling and destruction of the Yellowstone park, just as the Turkish protesters have no right to protest the "legal" selling and destruction of one of the few parks that exist in Istanbul, right? PS: it started out as a peaceful Eco protest, the police went in it in full force to protect the rights of the 1%, the people in the rest of the country saw that, and the peaceful , park related eco protest, turned into a ""nation wide, anti-religious-right wing-government protest"". It's not about the bloody park!
ReplyVote up (225)down (208)
Original comment
well if someone should want to buy Yellowstone park and build a cow ranch/slaughterhouse on it, the police would be entitled to crack down on the protesters who oppose the building of the cow ranch/slaughterhouse, because , to follow your logic "if they would have wanted the park to stay the way it is, they would have bought it for themselves", right? the Yellowstone protesters have no right to protest the "legal" selling and destruction of the Yellowstone park, just as the Turkish protesters have no right to protest the "legal" selling and destruction of one of the few parks that exist in Istanbul, right? PS: it started out as a peaceful Eco protest, the police went in it in full force to protect the rights of the 1%, the people in the rest of the country saw that, and the peaceful , park related eco protest, turned into a ""nation wide, anti-religious-right wing-government protest"". It's not about the bloody park!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
Yellowstone is unique. You can build a similar park that was in Istanbul anywhere so there is no comparing those two. In the USA, we have eminent domain laws that would force me to sell any of my properties if there are plans to build something for the benefit of a larger group of people. For example, if a highway was being built and my house was in the way, I would be forced to sell. I cannot hold up the progress of a country because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few LINK . Regarding the park in Turkey, can you tell me if that was privately owned or publicly owned? Who is building the mall? Is it the government or a private company?
ReplyVote up (204)down (212)
Original comment
Yellowstone is unique. You can build a similar park that was in Istanbul anywhere so there is no comparing those two. In the USA, we have eminent domain laws that would force me to sell any of my properties if there are plans to build something for the benefit of a larger group of people. For example, if a highway was being built and my house was in the way, I would be forced to sell. I cannot hold up the progress of a country because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few LINK . Regarding the park in Turkey, can you tell me if that was privately owned or publicly owned? Who is building the mall? Is it the government or a private company?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
no, you cannot build another park like that in Istanbul because there's nowhere else in Istanbul to build it, most of the green-spaces were already built upon. The park is a municipal park.. i can't tell you more than that because all the Internet is buzzing with protests, but check wiki LINK , maybe the info there is accurate, seeing that there's a lot of focus on it right now. that being said... it's not about the park anymore! it started out like that but now they want a regime change. i's not about the park.
ReplyVote up (208)down (212)
Original comment
no, you cannot build another park like that in Istanbul because there's nowhere else in Istanbul to build it, most of the green-spaces were already built upon. The park is a municipal park.. i can't tell you more than that because all the Internet is buzzing with protests, but check wiki LINK , maybe the info there is accurate, seeing that there's a lot of focus on it right now. that being said... it's not about the park anymore! it started out like that but now they want a regime change. i's not about the park.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
According to the Wikipedia article you linked, the park used to be a barracks. Seems nobody protested when those were demolished so if they left them there, would there have been protests? What if it went directly from barracks to mall would it have bene okay then? Also regarding that article, I did not see anything that said there wasn't any other room for the park to be relocated elsewhere. In fact, I looked at a map of Istanbul and found several areas that are already full of trees. I didn't get the entire city in view so this is just a small piece and I highlighted candidate areas in purple. LINK So if they want a regime change, then during the next election, vote for a new candidate. Seems they are a representative democratic republic just like the USA so do your regime change properly. If the government becomes tyrannical on you, that's why you need to own guns.
ReplyVote up (185)down (213)
Original comment
According to the Wikipedia article you linked, the park used to be a barracks. Seems nobody protested when those were demolished so if they left them there, would there have been protests? What if it went directly from barracks to mall would it have bene okay then? Also regarding that article, I did not see anything that said there wasn't any other room for the park to be relocated elsewhere. In fact, I looked at a map of Istanbul and found several areas that are already full of trees. I didn't get the entire city in view so this is just a small piece and I highlighted candidate areas in purple. LINK So if they want a regime change, then during the next election, vote for a new candidate. Seems they are a representative democratic republic just like the USA so do your regime change properly. If the government becomes tyrannical on you, that's why you need to own guns.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
""If the government becomes tyrannical on you, that's why you need to own guns. "" yes that would be like Syria all over again... i bet the US military industrial complex would love that. ""he park used to be a barracks. Seems nobody protested when those were demolished so if they left them there, would there have been protests?"" of course not, why would anyone protest to defend disused barracks?it makes no sense so why ask? ""What if it went directly from barracks to mall would it have bene okay then?"" yes, it would have been ok then, but it's not like that, so it's not ok! the park was there from a time when Ataturk was leader of the country therefore it has a lot of history and is also a symbol of national pride. ""I did not see anything that said there wasn't any other room for the park to be relocated elsewhere."" that's probably because there isn't any, otherwise the government would have made this point since this whole deal started, so no plans for that. Look at a map of Paris or London or any other large European capital such as Istanbul and tell me what percentage of those cities is green space and then look again at that map of Istanbul and tell me what percentage of Istanbul is covered in green space. And how would one relocate a park in another park? that doesn't make any sense.
ReplyVote up (204)down (208)
Original comment
""If the government becomes tyrannical on you, that's why you need to own guns. "" yes that would be like Syria all over again... i bet the US military industrial complex would love that. ""he park used to be a barracks. Seems nobody protested when those were demolished so if they left them there, would there have been protests?"" of course not, why would anyone protest to defend disused barracks?it makes no sense so why ask? ""What if it went directly from barracks to mall would it have bene okay then?"" yes, it would have been ok then, but it's not like that, so it's not ok! the park was there from a time when Ataturk was leader of the country therefore it has a lot of history and is also a symbol of national pride. ""I did not see anything that said there wasn't any other room for the park to be relocated elsewhere."" that's probably because there isn't any, otherwise the government would have made this point since this whole deal started, so no plans for that. Look at a map of Paris or London or any other large European capital such as Istanbul and tell me what percentage of those cities is green space and then look again at that map of Istanbul and tell me what percentage of Istanbul is covered in green space. And how would one relocate a park in another park? that doesn't make any sense.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
Didn't you look at the map I created for you? There is plenty of green space to add another park. Besides, parks are luxury items and does not contribute to the GDP of the country. It does not generate any revenue and requires maintenance. Replacing it with a mall that will be maintained by the owners is a good idea. Who was paying to mow the lawns and trim the trees in the park? The government? Bad idea if that's true. I wouldn't want my tax dollars going into maintenance like that. The national parks in the USA generate revenue because you pay to enter them and that revenue can be used to maintain the parks. I recently visited the national park in St. Augustine, Florida and paid for all my visitors and it was quite expensive. I doubt the park in Turkey required any sort of payment from their citizens.
ReplyVote up (205)down (200)
Original comment
Didn't you look at the map I created for you? There is plenty of green space to add another park. Besides, parks are luxury items and does not contribute to the GDP of the country. It does not generate any revenue and requires maintenance. Replacing it with a mall that will be maintained by the owners is a good idea. Who was paying to mow the lawns and trim the trees in the park? The government? Bad idea if that's true. I wouldn't want my tax dollars going into maintenance like that. The national parks in the USA generate revenue because you pay to enter them and that revenue can be used to maintain the parks. I recently visited the national park in St. Augustine, Florida and paid for all my visitors and it was quite expensive. I doubt the park in Turkey required any sort of payment from their citizens.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
again, you can't put a park in the place of another park, just like you can't move the central park of New york in the place of Bronx park of new york, it doesn't make any sense, it's just changing the name of the Bronx park to central park. If you were to do that you would still be left without a park, the Bronx park. Green space = park in most cases. Well if it doesn't generate any revenue and requires maintenance, i guess it's ok! the same can be said about the Central Park of new york, so by that logic, you should cut down all the trees in it , level the land so that it can be cultivated with gmo's... or even better, plot it all and sell it to companies that will build skyscrapers on it. You seem to take into consideration only the economic incentive, but you're missing the fact that there's more to life than economic profit. I am sure that the municipality of Istanbul requires it's citizens to pay some taxes and i am sure that a percentage of those taxes goes to park maintenance.
ReplyVote up (187)down (222)
Original comment
again, you can't put a park in the place of another park, just like you can't move the central park of New york in the place of Bronx park of new york, it doesn't make any sense, it's just changing the name of the Bronx park to central park. If you were to do that you would still be left without a park, the Bronx park. Green space = park in most cases. Well if it doesn't generate any revenue and requires maintenance, i guess it's ok! the same can be said about the Central Park of new york, so by that logic, you should cut down all the trees in it , level the land so that it can be cultivated with gmo's... or even better, plot it all and sell it to companies that will build skyscrapers on it. You seem to take into consideration only the economic incentive, but you're missing the fact that there's more to life than economic profit. I am sure that the municipality of Istanbul requires it's citizens to pay some taxes and i am sure that a percentage of those taxes goes to park maintenance.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
So you feel that all citizens should pay for the park maintenance even if they don't use that service. That's at a minimum of socialism right there. Why not have everyone pay for my food and shelter while you're at it? Regarding the central park, it's not my call if the government decides to sell that land to the public for development of sky scrapers. However, is it possible that they don't do that because manhattan is already over populated and more buildings will become problems with transportation, water, sewage, electric, and other infrastructures? Keeping land reserved is sometimes necessary in high density cities like New York but Istanbul is far from being highly populated as you can see from the image I created for you which you still never acknowledged had plenty of green areas for another park.
ReplyVote up (168)down (215)
Original comment
So you feel that all citizens should pay for the park maintenance even if they don't use that service. That's at a minimum of socialism right there. Why not have everyone pay for my food and shelter while you're at it? Regarding the central park, it's not my call if the government decides to sell that land to the public for development of sky scrapers. However, is it possible that they don't do that because manhattan is already over populated and more buildings will become problems with transportation, water, sewage, electric, and other infrastructures? Keeping land reserved is sometimes necessary in high density cities like New York but Istanbul is far from being highly populated as you can see from the image I created for you which you still never acknowledged had plenty of green areas for another park.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
""So you feel that all citizens should pay for the park maintenance even if they don't use that service. That's at a minimum of socialism right there."" Yes, in Europe we have a strong tradition of Social Democratic parties. In America you have a strong tradition of demonizing socialism, so i wouldn't expect you to understand what a social democratic ideology actually means, But if that's what the people of that country want who are you to say otherwise? ""Why not have everyone pay for my food and shelter while you're at it?"" some countries have something similar to that, it's called SOCIAL WELFARE and BENEFITS and they exist only in civilized societies. About central park... i'm not interested in why they would or wouldn't sell it, i was asking if you think that's a good idea and you said you didn't care (it's not my call if the government decides to sell that land to the public for development of sky scrapers). You might care only about the economic incentive but you're in the minority, people care about other things too. If new york were to do that to central park, you would have a similar situation as the one in Turkey.
ReplyVote up (171)down (219)
Original comment
""So you feel that all citizens should pay for the park maintenance even if they don't use that service. That's at a minimum of socialism right there."" Yes, in Europe we have a strong tradition of Social Democratic parties. In America you have a strong tradition of demonizing socialism, so i wouldn't expect you to understand what a social democratic ideology actually means, But if that's what the people of that country want who are you to say otherwise? ""Why not have everyone pay for my food and shelter while you're at it?"" some countries have something similar to that, it's called SOCIAL WELFARE and BENEFITS and they exist only in civilized societies. About central park... i'm not interested in why they would or wouldn't sell it, i was asking if you think that's a good idea and you said you didn't care (it's not my call if the government decides to sell that land to the public for development of sky scrapers). You might care only about the economic incentive but you're in the minority, people care about other things too. If new york were to do that to central park, you would have a similar situation as the one in Turkey.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
Some people like me might consider a mall an improvement over a park. I could use a mall much more than I would use a park. What if they removed the park and installed a museum instead? Would that be okay then? Is it only malls that you have issues with?
ReplyVote up (179)down (224)
Original comment
Some people like me might consider a mall an improvement over a park. I could use a mall much more than I would use a park. What if they removed the park and installed a museum instead? Would that be okay then? Is it only malls that you have issues with?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
some people might consider a park an improvement over a mall. They could use a park much more than they could use yet ANOTHER Mall in the city that has the biggest bazaar in the world. NO, if they wanted to put a museum instead of the park it would still not be OK, but perhaps you should ask the Turks that question. Their prime minister tried to save the situation by saying that they don't want to put a mall in the "barracks" but a Mosque instead!! did the protest stop after that? NO they didn't! because Turkey is still a secular country and secular people like parks. And i find myself having to insist yet AGAIN on the fact that it's not about the park anymore! it's about a secular nation that wants the resignation of a religious right wing prime minister, who probably got a lot of illegitimate euros from a mall developer.
ReplyVote up (178)down (180)
Original comment
some people might consider a park an improvement over a mall. They could use a park much more than they could use yet ANOTHER Mall in the city that has the biggest bazaar in the world. NO, if they wanted to put a museum instead of the park it would still not be OK, but perhaps you should ask the Turks that question. Their prime minister tried to save the situation by saying that they don't want to put a mall in the "barracks" but a Mosque instead!! did the protest stop after that? NO they didn't! because Turkey is still a secular country and secular people like parks. And i find myself having to insist yet AGAIN on the fact that it's not about the park anymore! it's about a secular nation that wants the resignation of a religious right wing prime minister, who probably got a lot of illegitimate euros from a mall developer.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: GreedIsGood (1900 days ago)
"does not contribute to the GDP". Not directly, but surely people who use the park to unwind and relax from their jobs will be better for it, thus they will be more likely to work harder in their jobs because the feel better in themselves. You have to speculate to accumulate, so paying for the upkeep of the park will benefit the workers and the govt.
ReplyVote up (149)down (193)
Original comment
"does not contribute to the GDP". Not directly, but surely people who use the park to unwind and relax from their jobs will be better for it, thus they will be more likely to work harder in their jobs because the feel better in themselves. You have to speculate to accumulate, so paying for the upkeep of the park will benefit the workers and the govt.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
So you feel the government should pay for people to unwind and relax? Can't they do that at home watching TV or some other activity that the government doesn't pay for?
ReplyVote up (213)down (221)
Original comment
So you feel the government should pay for people to unwind and relax? Can't they do that at home watching TV or some other activity that the government doesn't pay for?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
the government in a democratic society is suppose to represent the people. The people elect their politicians and the politicians set in place a government (unless lobbying/corruption is involved)... that's how it's suppose to work, in theory. SO, at least in theory, the government will implement the measures that it's people want it to implement (unless lobbying/corruption is involved), and if the people want to pay 1 euro cent more a year for the upkeep of that park, then o be it. But the fact remains that it's not about the park anymore! it's about a secular nation that wants the resignation of a religious right wing prime minister, who probably got a lot of illegitimate euros from a mall developer.
ReplyVote up (174)down (208)
Original comment
the government in a democratic society is suppose to represent the people. The people elect their politicians and the politicians set in place a government (unless lobbying/corruption is involved)... that's how it's suppose to work, in theory. SO, at least in theory, the government will implement the measures that it's people want it to implement (unless lobbying/corruption is involved), and if the people want to pay 1 euro cent more a year for the upkeep of that park, then o be it. But the fact remains that it's not about the park anymore! it's about a secular nation that wants the resignation of a religious right wing prime minister, who probably got a lot of illegitimate euros from a mall developer.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
Actually, the way it works is that there is a set amount that is collected. You have state income tax (except for some like Florida), sales tax, and homeowner taxes. Those are used to fund projects approved by the elected officials. So when deciding if they should hire more policemen or to pay for a recreation area for visitors to have fun for free, the elected officials meet and vote on the budget. They work through line items until the budget is acceptable for the majority of the politicians. The citizens do not vote on each budget line item so that's why we are not a real democracy but a representative republic instead.
ReplyVote up (184)down (218)
Original comment
Actually, the way it works is that there is a set amount that is collected. You have state income tax (except for some like Florida), sales tax, and homeowner taxes. Those are used to fund projects approved by the elected officials. So when deciding if they should hire more policemen or to pay for a recreation area for visitors to have fun for free, the elected officials meet and vote on the budget. They work through line items until the budget is acceptable for the majority of the politicians. The citizens do not vote on each budget line item so that's why we are not a real democracy but a representative republic instead.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
actually, i think i specifically said "the government in a democratic society is suppose to represent the people" and i think i did not say anything about the USA and how you run things there. This has to do with Turkey, a democratic parliamentary republic. In a parliamentary Republic such as Turkey, the executive branch (the government) derives its legitimacy from and is accountable to the legislature (the parliament) which is elected by the people. And i must insist on the fact that it's not about the park anymore! it's about a secular nation that wants the resignation of a religious right wing prime minister, who probably got a lot of illegitimate euros from a mall developer.
ReplyVote up (190)down (188)
Original comment
actually, i think i specifically said "the government in a democratic society is suppose to represent the people" and i think i did not say anything about the USA and how you run things there. This has to do with Turkey, a democratic parliamentary republic. In a parliamentary Republic such as Turkey, the executive branch (the government) derives its legitimacy from and is accountable to the legislature (the parliament) which is elected by the people. And i must insist on the fact that it's not about the park anymore! it's about a secular nation that wants the resignation of a religious right wing prime minister, who probably got a lot of illegitimate euros from a mall developer.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1900 days ago)
The green space in taksim square is public land. A more apt comparison would be with that of central park. That is how the park there is regarded by the turks. How would americans feel if Obama just decided to level central park in favour of a giant concrete shopping mall?
ReplyVote up (166)down (191)
Original comment
The green space in taksim square is public land. A more apt comparison would be with that of central park. That is how the park there is regarded by the turks. How would americans feel if Obama just decided to level central park in favour of a giant concrete shopping mall?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
agreed!
ReplyVote up (196)down (173)
Original comment
agreed!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1900 days ago)
...and don't get me started on Rosa Parks
ReplyVote up (178)down (204)
Original comment
...and don't get me started on Rosa Parks
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
weren't you the one in favor of small government? i guess you're making an exception when it come to army and police, huh?
ReplyVote up (166)down (178)
Original comment
weren't you the one in favor of small government? i guess you're making an exception when it come to army and police, huh?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
Every single time I mention about tax dollars and how they should be used, I always state exceptions for defense and the local police. Re-read my comments if you don't believe me now.
ReplyVote up (172)down (167)
Original comment
Every single time I mention about tax dollars and how they should be used, I always state exceptions for defense and the local police. Re-read my comments if you don't believe me now.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
oh i believe you! i jut wanted to remind everyone else where you stand on social policies, healthcare, education, scientific research and even the fire department... and where you stand on guns, war, army and police spending. Sounds like you cold be one of the guys who the Turks are protesting against... no? which would explain your defensive stance towards the religious right wing regime in turkey and your condemnation of the protesters.
ReplyVote up (174)down (188)
Original comment
oh i believe you! i jut wanted to remind everyone else where you stand on social policies, healthcare, education, scientific research and even the fire department... and where you stand on guns, war, army and police spending. Sounds like you cold be one of the guys who the Turks are protesting against... no? which would explain your defensive stance towards the religious right wing regime in turkey and your condemnation of the protesters.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
... just* , could* ...spell check didn't correct those words because ...they exist...
ReplyVote up (199)down (163)
Original comment
... just* , could* ...spell check didn't correct those words because ...they exist...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
Here are my stances: Pro private health care. Pro education but should be funded by people who use it. Pro scientific research. Fire department should be privatized and funded by people that use the service. Pro guns. Anti War. Pro defense and police tax dollar budgets. I have no stance on religion except that I personally am an atheist but I could care less what religion other people are. I never considered myself right-wing but I am pro capitalism and that can create inequalities where the lazy get less of the pie and the hard workers get more of the pie. I am a libertarian. I am pro banking and work for a bank. I am pro corporations and invest in them and own my own businesses. I believe in freedom of speech to the point that corporations should be allowed to speak their mind even if that is for or against a political candidate. Pro choice. Homosexuals should have the same rights as straight people. People of all races are equals. Women are equal to men. Did I miss any that you want me to clarify?
ReplyVote up (159)down (178)
Original comment
Here are my stances: Pro private health care. Pro education but should be funded by people who use it. Pro scientific research. Fire department should be privatized and funded by people that use the service. Pro guns. Anti War. Pro defense and police tax dollar budgets. I have no stance on religion except that I personally am an atheist but I could care less what religion other people are. I never considered myself right-wing but I am pro capitalism and that can create inequalities where the lazy get less of the pie and the hard workers get more of the pie. I am a libertarian. I am pro banking and work for a bank. I am pro corporations and invest in them and own my own businesses. I believe in freedom of speech to the point that corporations should be allowed to speak their mind even if that is for or against a political candidate. Pro choice. Homosexuals should have the same rights as straight people. People of all races are equals. Women are equal to men. Did I miss any that you want me to clarify?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1900 days ago)
When you say "Pro education but should be funded by people who use it" - what does that mean? Can you expand?
ReplyVote up (128)down (156)
Original comment
When you say "Pro education but should be funded by people who use it" - what does that mean? Can you expand?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
Today, I pay more than my fair share in education costs. I own multiple houses and the education costs are accessed by the value of each home owned. I do not have any children of my own so why should I have to pay for the education of other people's children? You would think that people would decide to have children only after evaluating if they could afford to pay for all the food, health care, education, and housing required for that child. Unfortunately they have these children and I am the one paying for it. That doesn't seem fair. I don't have the full answer to the problem because everyone can have children without approval from the government and it's not fair to the child that they were born in a deadbeat family so the tax dollars are used to pay for their education.
ReplyVote up (131)down (173)
Original comment
Today, I pay more than my fair share in education costs. I own multiple houses and the education costs are accessed by the value of each home owned. I do not have any children of my own so why should I have to pay for the education of other people's children? You would think that people would decide to have children only after evaluating if they could afford to pay for all the food, health care, education, and housing required for that child. Unfortunately they have these children and I am the one paying for it. That doesn't seem fair. I don't have the full answer to the problem because everyone can have children without approval from the government and it's not fair to the child that they were born in a deadbeat family so the tax dollars are used to pay for their education.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
give us the anti instead of the pro: Anti public healthcare like the one in france and italy (the best in the world) , Anti defense spending cuts (seeing that americans spend 50 cents on the tax doalars on defense spending... money that will go to the military industrial contracts)... etc... you know, stuff like that.
ReplyVote up (158)down (197)
Original comment
give us the anti instead of the pro: Anti public healthcare like the one in france and italy (the best in the world) , Anti defense spending cuts (seeing that americans spend 50 cents on the tax doalars on defense spending... money that will go to the military industrial contracts)... etc... you know, stuff like that.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
...anti regulations for the financial institutions like the ones implemented after the great recession in the 30s. anti gmo regulations of any kind, anti carbon tax or any kind of environmental regulations...stuff like that...
ReplyVote up (149)down (173)
Original comment
...anti regulations for the financial institutions like the ones implemented after the great recession in the 30s. anti gmo regulations of any kind, anti carbon tax or any kind of environmental regulations...stuff like that...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
Pro financial institution regulations. Pro GMO foods and only need regulation if you can prove they are unhealthy which nobody has. Anti carbon tax (Cap and Trade) but pro some environmental regulations. If a company is producing excessive toxic chemicals, how could anyone be pro that? Also, I'm against allowing oil spills and murder and stealing. When those do happen, and they will, the violator needs to be punished.
ReplyVote up (156)down (137)
Original comment
Pro financial institution regulations. Pro GMO foods and only need regulation if you can prove they are unhealthy which nobody has. Anti carbon tax (Cap and Trade) but pro some environmental regulations. If a company is producing excessive toxic chemicals, how could anyone be pro that? Also, I'm against allowing oil spills and murder and stealing. When those do happen, and they will, the violator needs to be punished.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
but a libertarian is for deregulation and small government, so how can you be pro financial institution regulation? especially when you take into consideration the fact that since the 90's until the 2008 crisis, the financial sector was heavily deregulated thanks to the lobby made by the financial institutions and banks for which you work? Pro GMO foods.. i know, and i'm not getting into that discussion again but here's the latest article on it LINK (not approved by the monsanto ruled FDA but it still found it's way in your bread. " The USDA never approved the strain, and environmentalists have expressed deep concern about potential health risks involving the mysterious GM crop. The finding has already had a detrimental impact on US trade: Japanese authorities last week announced that they would suspend imports of US wheat. Shortly after the announcement, wheat for July delivery fell by 8.25 cents to $6.945 per bushel on the Chicago Board Trade. ") anther thing you said "" If a company is producing excessive toxic chemicals, how could anyone be pro that?"" you mean like fracking? i hear you on that.
ReplyVote up (154)down (152)
Original comment
but a libertarian is for deregulation and small government, so how can you be pro financial institution regulation? especially when you take into consideration the fact that since the 90's until the 2008 crisis, the financial sector was heavily deregulated thanks to the lobby made by the financial institutions and banks for which you work? Pro GMO foods.. i know, and i'm not getting into that discussion again but here's the latest article on it LINK (not approved by the monsanto ruled FDA but it still found it's way in your bread. " The USDA never approved the strain, and environmentalists have expressed deep concern about potential health risks involving the mysterious GM crop. The finding has already had a detrimental impact on US trade: Japanese authorities last week announced that they would suspend imports of US wheat. Shortly after the announcement, wheat for July delivery fell by 8.25 cents to $6.945 per bushel on the Chicago Board Trade. ") anther thing you said "" If a company is producing excessive toxic chemicals, how could anyone be pro that?"" you mean like fracking? i hear you on that.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
I can be pro banking regulations because banks are a major source of funding for companies and individuals. The economy could become unstable if banks were to fail. Having regulations that require them to hold back a fraction of their deposits is a good idea. Having regulations that require clear terms of the agreements in a specific font size and verbiage helps the consumers understand what they are agreeing to. Wheat is subsidized by the government to keep the price of bread low. I disagree with this strategy since some people, like me, are allergic to bread and I believe everyone should pay the actual costs of the bread they consume instead of spreading the costs equally to all tax payers even when some do not use the product. Regarding fracking, I'm not an expert in that area so I don't know what toxic chemicals you're referring to. I understood that it's a process where water is injected into the ground to release natural gas and that gas is captured and used. natural gas burns cleaner than oil products so I would think you would be for that process. Let me know what your objections are on fracking so I can learn more about it.
ReplyVote up (163)down (157)
Original comment
I can be pro banking regulations because banks are a major source of funding for companies and individuals. The economy could become unstable if banks were to fail. Having regulations that require them to hold back a fraction of their deposits is a good idea. Having regulations that require clear terms of the agreements in a specific font size and verbiage helps the consumers understand what they are agreeing to. Wheat is subsidized by the government to keep the price of bread low. I disagree with this strategy since some people, like me, are allergic to bread and I believe everyone should pay the actual costs of the bread they consume instead of spreading the costs equally to all tax payers even when some do not use the product. Regarding fracking, I'm not an expert in that area so I don't know what toxic chemicals you're referring to. I understood that it's a process where water is injected into the ground to release natural gas and that gas is captured and used. natural gas burns cleaner than oil products so I would think you would be for that process. Let me know what your objections are on fracking so I can learn more about it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
the economy could become unstable if any major sector of the American economy were to fail so i guess you are pro regulation of those other economical sectors also, which is anti libertarian since libertarians are for deregulation and small government. About the wheat... yeah... you missed my point completely, but forget about that because the discussion would be about GMO's and how they will get out of control and in doing so it negatively affects the US economy. The discussion is about GMO's and I'm not keen on getting into that again. BoreMe posted an interesting video about Monsanto, pig genes and Monsanto's GMO business practices... i didn't see you comment on that. Now about fracking... here's why i'm against it: LINK and LINK .
ReplyVote up (147)down (140)
Original comment
the economy could become unstable if any major sector of the American economy were to fail so i guess you are pro regulation of those other economical sectors also, which is anti libertarian since libertarians are for deregulation and small government. About the wheat... yeah... you missed my point completely, but forget about that because the discussion would be about GMO's and how they will get out of control and in doing so it negatively affects the US economy. The discussion is about GMO's and I'm not keen on getting into that again. BoreMe posted an interesting video about Monsanto, pig genes and Monsanto's GMO business practices... i didn't see you comment on that. Now about fracking... here's why i'm against it: LINK and LINK .
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
It's not true that you can take any US sector and the entire economy would fail. Take the manufacturing of car tires for example. If they failed, we could import them from another country. Problem solved. I suppose I did miss your point about Wheat and still don't know what you're trying to say about it. I don't have anything to add about the GMO conversation but think that's unrelated to Wheat since it's corn and soy that's GMO and not wheat (unless I missed something recently). I did see the Monsanto video about Pig DNA and the huge patent application. All I can say is you can try to patent anything you want. It's a different story if it will be approved or not. Also patents can be invalidated if you can prove things are preexisting and it seems some people were able to prove that the DNA was preexisting. However, if you listened to the video carefully, it's not the DNA or the pig they were trying to patent but a special method for selective breading. That is an idea and not patenting the DNA or the pig itself. You can still farm pigs if that patent gets approved without having to pay Monsanto anything. The video was obviously biased against Monsanto and didn't explain the whole patent application.
ReplyVote up (151)down (144)
Original comment
It's not true that you can take any US sector and the entire economy would fail. Take the manufacturing of car tires for example. If they failed, we could import them from another country. Problem solved. I suppose I did miss your point about Wheat and still don't know what you're trying to say about it. I don't have anything to add about the GMO conversation but think that's unrelated to Wheat since it's corn and soy that's GMO and not wheat (unless I missed something recently). I did see the Monsanto video about Pig DNA and the huge patent application. All I can say is you can try to patent anything you want. It's a different story if it will be approved or not. Also patents can be invalidated if you can prove things are preexisting and it seems some people were able to prove that the DNA was preexisting. However, if you listened to the video carefully, it's not the DNA or the pig they were trying to patent but a special method for selective breading. That is an idea and not patenting the DNA or the pig itself. You can still farm pigs if that patent gets approved without having to pay Monsanto anything. The video was obviously biased against Monsanto and didn't explain the whole patent application.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
i specifically said ""the economy could become unstable if any major sector of the American economy were to fail"" notice how i added MAJOR in there, so your example does not stand. About the wheat, yeah, you missed a lot, red the article. About the pigs, let's not have this conversation here instead of having it on the Pig video... not that i'm looking forward to it. Also, look into fracking.
ReplyVote up (145)down (177)
Original comment
i specifically said ""the economy could become unstable if any major sector of the American economy were to fail"" notice how i added MAJOR in there, so your example does not stand. About the wheat, yeah, you missed a lot, red the article. About the pigs, let's not have this conversation here instead of having it on the Pig video... not that i'm looking forward to it. Also, look into fracking.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
Other than financial sectors, what do you consider major sectors in the USA? About the wheat, if I missed something, you didn't tell me what it is. I'm not going to visit every random crap link that you post. State your claims and then back them up with a link. I could easily just create links to pages that have the same views as me but I doubt you would enjoy seeing the links like that without the commentary from me too.
ReplyVote up (143)down (159)
Original comment
Other than financial sectors, what do you consider major sectors in the USA? About the wheat, if I missed something, you didn't tell me what it is. I'm not going to visit every random crap link that you post. State your claims and then back them up with a link. I could easily just create links to pages that have the same views as me but I doubt you would enjoy seeing the links like that without the commentary from me too.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
i'm not having the GMO wheat conversation on this post, so if you're not gonna read the article we'll leave it at that. Other major economic sectors in the usa are: Retail trade, Construction, Accommodation & food services, Wholesale trade, Professional, scientific, & technical services, etc. I can tell you' know you're starting to lose an argument when you start using the word crap.
ReplyVote up (163)down (147)
Original comment
i'm not having the GMO wheat conversation on this post, so if you're not gonna read the article we'll leave it at that. Other major economic sectors in the usa are: Retail trade, Construction, Accommodation & food services, Wholesale trade, Professional, scientific, & technical services, etc. I can tell you' know you're starting to lose an argument when you start using the word crap.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
None of those sectors are centralized like banking is so a single failure will not bring down the entire sector. Think if JC Penny went out of business that all the retail stores would go under too? Doubtful. Besides, if any of those sectors did fail, we could import those from other countries. We already get professional and technical services from places like India so why not Retail?
ReplyVote up (174)down (145)
Original comment
None of those sectors are centralized like banking is so a single failure will not bring down the entire sector. Think if JC Penny went out of business that all the retail stores would go under too? Doubtful. Besides, if any of those sectors did fail, we could import those from other countries. We already get professional and technical services from places like India so why not Retail?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
so you're saying that the problem lies in the fact that the banking sector in the USA is centralized, and you're implying that you should end the fed and decentralized the banking sector, just like libertarian Ron Paul wants? You're saying that regulations are needed only by Centralized sectors of the economy? If there's a market/economic sector that is centralized, is it still a free market/economic sector, or is it just a legal monopoly( in this case , a legal monopoly of a privately owned entity on money creation) ?? you're saying that if you end the fed, regulations in the banking sector will no longer be needed? Because from what I've read, you are in favor of regulation for the financial sector but only because it's centralized and if you were to decentralize it, regulations will no longer be needed. Is that correct?
ReplyVote up (142)down (181)
Original comment
so you're saying that the problem lies in the fact that the banking sector in the USA is centralized, and you're implying that you should end the fed and decentralized the banking sector, just like libertarian Ron Paul wants? You're saying that regulations are needed only by Centralized sectors of the economy? If there's a market/economic sector that is centralized, is it still a free market/economic sector, or is it just a legal monopoly( in this case , a legal monopoly of a privately owned entity on money creation) ?? you're saying that if you end the fed, regulations in the banking sector will no longer be needed? Because from what I've read, you are in favor of regulation for the financial sector but only because it's centralized and if you were to decentralize it, regulations will no longer be needed. Is that correct?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
You are attempting to put words in my comments that are not there by combining two completely different comments into one and assuming they link up. First, I never said that I would want to decentralize the banking system although I'd have to look into that because it might be a good idea but I never considered it until now. I also never said that I'm only for regulations for banks because they are centralized. I specifically mentioned a regulation that is for the clarity of the customers and you completely dismissed that in an attempt to make me look like some horrible creature. Regulations are good in the right places. For example, speed limits are a regulation and those are in place for the safety of the citizens. There are food standard regulations for the safety of the citizens. So some do make sense but others do not for example regulating the maximum size soda to 16 ounces. LINK
ReplyVote up (203)down (157)
Original comment
You are attempting to put words in my comments that are not there by combining two completely different comments into one and assuming they link up. First, I never said that I would want to decentralize the banking system although I'd have to look into that because it might be a good idea but I never considered it until now. I also never said that I'm only for regulations for banks because they are centralized. I specifically mentioned a regulation that is for the clarity of the customers and you completely dismissed that in an attempt to make me look like some horrible creature. Regulations are good in the right places. For example, speed limits are a regulation and those are in place for the safety of the citizens. There are food standard regulations for the safety of the citizens. So some do make sense but others do not for example regulating the maximum size soda to 16 ounces. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
what about deregulating the financial industry? libertarians are for deregulation, but that type of deregulation was a bad thing, so are you still a libertarian if you do not support that policy that lead the world in the housing bubble and the financial crisis? or are you just a plain old tea party-er?
ReplyVote up (179)down (154)
Original comment
what about deregulating the financial industry? libertarians are for deregulation, but that type of deregulation was a bad thing, so are you still a libertarian if you do not support that policy that lead the world in the housing bubble and the financial crisis? or are you just a plain old tea party-er?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
It is possible to be a member of a political party such as a Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian and not agree with 100 percent of what the current agenda is. In fact, it is probably rare for a person to agree with every single factor of a particular party. I do agree with some tea party items too. I also like a couple Republican stands. Democrats have less in common with my views.
ReplyVote up (184)down (139)
Original comment
It is possible to be a member of a political party such as a Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian and not agree with 100 percent of what the current agenda is. In fact, it is probably rare for a person to agree with every single factor of a particular party. I do agree with some tea party items too. I also like a couple Republican stands. Democrats have less in common with my views.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1899 days ago)
understood.
ReplyVote up (150)down (146)
Original comment
understood.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
About your links to fracking, I'm not going to read those pages. I asked you for your opinion not a link you proved from a google search. I read some of those pages already and did not find any reference to toxic chemicals produced from fracking. It seems companies are trying to get a cleaner source of fuel than oil and you don't want cleaner energy and you don't want the dirty oil either. You are obviously against progress.
ReplyVote up (134)down (167)
Original comment
About your links to fracking, I'm not going to read those pages. I asked you for your opinion not a link you proved from a google search. I read some of those pages already and did not find any reference to toxic chemicals produced from fracking. It seems companies are trying to get a cleaner source of fuel than oil and you don't want cleaner energy and you don't want the dirty oil either. You are obviously against progress.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1899 days ago)
If we could find a way to harness the energy of cengland0 and guest123456789 we wouldn't need fracking
ReplyVote up (161)down (154)
Original comment
If we could find a way to harness the energy of cengland0 and guest123456789 we wouldn't need fracking
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1899 days ago)
Latest comment: you mean like this LINK ?
ReplyVote up (173)down (152)
Original comment
Latest comment: you mean like this LINK ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1899 days ago)
Ha, good one. I don't have as much energy as guest123456789 so I give up after the conversation begins his flawed logic loop.
ReplyVote up (130)down (145)
Original comment
Ha, good one. I don't have as much energy as guest123456789 so I give up after the conversation begins his flawed logic loop.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
...i am actually flabbergasted by your comment... my opinion is that fracking is very very very toxic and unhealthy and bad for the environment. Smarter people than me wrote a lot of very good articles abut fracking and some made even documentaries... so i linked you to them... and you're saying i'm anti progress because i don't want to drink poison water and get cancer. You are being unreasonable and irrational. This was my face when i read the comment :O
ReplyVote up (129)down (139)
Original comment
...i am actually flabbergasted by your comment... my opinion is that fracking is very very very toxic and unhealthy and bad for the environment. Smarter people than me wrote a lot of very good articles abut fracking and some made even documentaries... so i linked you to them... and you're saying i'm anti progress because i don't want to drink poison water and get cancer. You are being unreasonable and irrational. This was my face when i read the comment :O
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
Remember a long time ago I said you need to state your claim and then post a link that backs up your claim. You must have forgotten because you still have not stated any claims. Now you say that you don't like to drink poison water and get cancer. Are you saying that there's proof that fracking will poison drinking water and that poison is known to cause cancer? Where is the link to that study that will prove that claim?
ReplyVote up (152)down (144)
Original comment
Remember a long time ago I said you need to state your claim and then post a link that backs up your claim. You must have forgotten because you still have not stated any claims. Now you say that you don't like to drink poison water and get cancer. Are you saying that there's proof that fracking will poison drinking water and that poison is known to cause cancer? Where is the link to that study that will prove that claim?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
LINK . first you say you don't want my links and now you tell me to give you links. I hope forbes and the epa is a good enough source for you.
ReplyVote up (147)down (142)
Original comment
LINK . first you say you don't want my links and now you tell me to give you links. I hope forbes and the epa is a good enough source for you.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
I never said I didn't want your links. I said I want you to state a claim and then provide a link to backup your claim. What you have been doing instead is just posting random links without any statement from you. I don't read that crap. Now about the Forbes article, I don't believe Forbes to be an authority on EPA issues so here's the direct link to the EPA report LINK . The EPA is the authority on this subject. First, the report does not contain the word cancer anywhere in it. From what I can tell, page 24 has the best summary of the results. It lists the chemicals found and the concentration of them. What it doesn't list is what is normally found for the same chemicals in water that is considered healthy nor does it mention which of those chemicals are harmful and what problems would be encountered if those substances were consumed. Since I consider my time limited and valuable, perhaps you can find the part in the EPA report that shows that it's harmful for me. What page is that on? Even the conclusions section beginning on page 33 doesn't say anything harmful. Page 39 describes complains from citizens about the taste and odor of the water but I've seen this when visiting friends that have shallow wells far away from any fracking.
ReplyVote up (74)down (146)
Original comment
I never said I didn't want your links. I said I want you to state a claim and then provide a link to backup your claim. What you have been doing instead is just posting random links without any statement from you. I don't read that crap. Now about the Forbes article, I don't believe Forbes to be an authority on EPA issues so here's the direct link to the EPA report LINK . The EPA is the authority on this subject. First, the report does not contain the word cancer anywhere in it. From what I can tell, page 24 has the best summary of the results. It lists the chemicals found and the concentration of them. What it doesn't list is what is normally found for the same chemicals in water that is considered healthy nor does it mention which of those chemicals are harmful and what problems would be encountered if those substances were consumed. Since I consider my time limited and valuable, perhaps you can find the part in the EPA report that shows that it's harmful for me. What page is that on? Even the conclusions section beginning on page 33 doesn't say anything harmful. Page 39 describes complains from citizens about the taste and odor of the water but I've seen this when visiting friends that have shallow wells far away from any fracking.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
you took that RPA link from the forbes article, which is why i posted that in the first place. Here's another more technically oriented source also cied by forbes LINK . In conclusion, if you want to drink contaminate water and risk cancer and other diseases, fine by me, but i sure won't drink that water and i'm sure that the people living there wouldn't want to drink it either. here's gasland, the full documentary for you: LINK
ReplyVote up (136)down (149)
Original comment
you took that RPA link from the forbes article, which is why i posted that in the first place. Here's another more technically oriented source also cied by forbes LINK . In conclusion, if you want to drink contaminate water and risk cancer and other diseases, fine by me, but i sure won't drink that water and i'm sure that the people living there wouldn't want to drink it either. here's gasland, the full documentary for you: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
They use the word contaminated but if you put a harmless loaf of bread in the water it would also be considered contaminated. Besides, they said in the EPA report that they only tested the water at the fracking sites and not at the nearby drinking wells so it's unknown if there is any contamination there. You are making assumptions again. Also what cancer and diseases are caused by this? None documented yet. So if you had a choice of getting energy from oil from the sands or from from natural gas from fracking, which would you prefer?
ReplyVote up (119)down (119)
Original comment
They use the word contaminated but if you put a harmless loaf of bread in the water it would also be considered contaminated. Besides, they said in the EPA report that they only tested the water at the fracking sites and not at the nearby drinking wells so it's unknown if there is any contamination there. You are making assumptions again. Also what cancer and diseases are caused by this? None documented yet. So if you had a choice of getting energy from oil from the sands or from from natural gas from fracking, which would you prefer?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
well, if it's like that i'll have both! one disaster bigger than the other, i just can't decide which is worse! If i should choose between finite resources and renewable energy i will most definitely choose renewable, even if it's more expensive. Now that i answered your questions, answer me this: If you were to have no choice but to drink that "contaminated water" every day for the rest of your life, and have your children drink it, and have your loved ones drink it every day OR move as far away from there as possible to a place where clean water is guaranteed... which one wold you choose? Would you bet your kids life on that water being safe to drink? because many families are put in this exact situation every day. so?
ReplyVote up (133)down (124)
Original comment
well, if it's like that i'll have both! one disaster bigger than the other, i just can't decide which is worse! If i should choose between finite resources and renewable energy i will most definitely choose renewable, even if it's more expensive. Now that i answered your questions, answer me this: If you were to have no choice but to drink that "contaminated water" every day for the rest of your life, and have your children drink it, and have your loved ones drink it every day OR move as far away from there as possible to a place where clean water is guaranteed... which one wold you choose? Would you bet your kids life on that water being safe to drink? because many families are put in this exact situation every day. so?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
...cat got your tongue?
ReplyVote up (143)down (174)
Original comment
...cat got your tongue?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: bill the lizard (1900 days ago)
I suspect he has a life.
ReplyVote up (106)down (141)
Original comment
I suspect he has a life.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
could be... but you probably don't know him tat well...
ReplyVote up (62)down (112)
Original comment
could be... but you probably don't know him tat well...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1900 days ago)
that*
ReplyVote up (120)down (126)
Original comment
that*
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
He was right, I do have a life. So you did not answer my question properly and used renewable energy as your answer which was not one of the options. Now, you want me to answer your question with limited answers. Obviously everybody wants to have safe drinking water. The EPA report did not say the drinking water was unsafe and did not say it causes cancer. Those were assumptions that you made again. The EPA specifically stated the nearby drinking water was not tested. The only testing performed was done at the actual fracking site far away from any drinking water.
ReplyVote up (124)down (141)
Original comment
He was right, I do have a life. So you did not answer my question properly and used renewable energy as your answer which was not one of the options. Now, you want me to answer your question with limited answers. Obviously everybody wants to have safe drinking water. The EPA report did not say the drinking water was unsafe and did not say it causes cancer. Those were assumptions that you made again. The EPA specifically stated the nearby drinking water was not tested. The only testing performed was done at the actual fracking site far away from any drinking water.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1899 days ago)
i choose tar sands over fracking. now would you be willing to risk the lives and health of your loved ones by drinking that water every day?
ReplyVote up (138)down (138)
Original comment
i choose tar sands over fracking. now would you be willing to risk the lives and health of your loved ones by drinking that water every day?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1899 days ago)
As long as the EPA has stated the water is healthy then yes.
ReplyVote up (130)down (147)
Original comment
As long as the EPA has stated the water is healthy then yes.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
...anti amendment to repeal the decision in "the citizens united vs fec" case , which will forbid corporations from spending money on any kind of election spending and will re-empower the actual human beings, just as was intended in the constitution...stuff like that... give us the Anti.
ReplyVote up (127)down (121)
Original comment
...anti amendment to repeal the decision in "the citizens united vs fec" case , which will forbid corporations from spending money on any kind of election spending and will re-empower the actual human beings, just as was intended in the constitution...stuff like that... give us the Anti.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
I mentioned I'm pro freedom of speech and companies should be allowed to advertise their products as well as anything else they want to talk about. If they want to spend money buying TV advertisements to show their support for a candidate, that's okay. Giving money to a candidate is not okay and is not free speech. I do not understand how you cannot see the distinction there and keep assuming that corporations can give unlimited money to political candidates when that is strictly forbidden.
ReplyVote up (125)down (137)
Original comment
I mentioned I'm pro freedom of speech and companies should be allowed to advertise their products as well as anything else they want to talk about. If they want to spend money buying TV advertisements to show their support for a candidate, that's okay. Giving money to a candidate is not okay and is not free speech. I do not understand how you cannot see the distinction there and keep assuming that corporations can give unlimited money to political candidates when that is strictly forbidden.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
again with the faith... there are no rules in politics Cary. A lobbying group or a PAC could make or brake an election, and politicians are aware of that, and so are those groups. Corruption is there as it has always been, and the unlimited amount of money is used as a weapon to hold hostage the democracy in america. I can't understand why any democracy loving citizen of any nation can be in favor of that.
ReplyVote up (129)down (119)
Original comment
again with the faith... there are no rules in politics Cary. A lobbying group or a PAC could make or brake an election, and politicians are aware of that, and so are those groups. Corruption is there as it has always been, and the unlimited amount of money is used as a weapon to hold hostage the democracy in america. I can't understand why any democracy loving citizen of any nation can be in favor of that.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
I challenged you before to identify any corruption or bribing of politicians that have yet been prosecuted so we can deal with it. You were unable to provide any evidence of that happening so can you do it now?
ReplyVote up (132)down (119)
Original comment
I challenged you before to identify any corruption or bribing of politicians that have yet been prosecuted so we can deal with it. You were unable to provide any evidence of that happening so can you do it now?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
when that happened, i explained to you that lobbying = corruption (in any civilized country, except for the USA), so you pick the company guilty of it. Probably the bank you work for...
ReplyVote up (102)down (116)
Original comment
when that happened, i explained to you that lobbying = corruption (in any civilized country, except for the USA), so you pick the company guilty of it. Probably the bank you work for...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
That's a cop out. That means you cannot give me any political figure that is being bribed or is corrupt but you keep maintaining that it happens. Lobbying is not corrupt politicians. It's about people trying to influence the decisions of the politicians. Do you consider that to be a bad thing? Why can't I write to my congressmen and ask them to vote for a bill in a particular manner and explain why? A professional lobbyist does it for a living and gets support from other individuals and companies to contact representatives and senators to give them the pros and cons of voting a particular way. I feel I should have the right to contact my representatives so why can't other people too? I remember when I was about 8 years old, my school had a project where we wrote to our senators and requested information from them. This was the beginning of our learning the political system and how each person can get involved in the decision making process. The representatives and senators represent the people so the people need to notify the politicians what our views on the matter is.
ReplyVote up (123)down (88)
Original comment
That's a cop out. That means you cannot give me any political figure that is being bribed or is corrupt but you keep maintaining that it happens. Lobbying is not corrupt politicians. It's about people trying to influence the decisions of the politicians. Do you consider that to be a bad thing? Why can't I write to my congressmen and ask them to vote for a bill in a particular manner and explain why? A professional lobbyist does it for a living and gets support from other individuals and companies to contact representatives and senators to give them the pros and cons of voting a particular way. I feel I should have the right to contact my representatives so why can't other people too? I remember when I was about 8 years old, my school had a project where we wrote to our senators and requested information from them. This was the beginning of our learning the political system and how each person can get involved in the decision making process. The representatives and senators represent the people so the people need to notify the politicians what our views on the matter is.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
uuhhh... you are incorrigible! you with your faith in your fantasy world... so frustrating to argue with you on the same issue and not get through. Here's how lobbying REALLY works and why it's legal corruption LINK forget all about your letter example, here are some real examples of lobbying LINK . I know for a fact (considering your age and your expertise and your education) that you already know these things... but you pretend not to know them, in the hope of winning an UN-winnable debate. This is common knowledge and the majority of the US population is FOR getting money out of politics. You would be against that only if you would have a lot to lose by changing the corrupt system. In conclusion, you are pro Corruption.
ReplyVote up (115)down (91)
Original comment
uuhhh... you are incorrigible! you with your faith in your fantasy world... so frustrating to argue with you on the same issue and not get through. Here's how lobbying REALLY works and why it's legal corruption LINK forget all about your letter example, here are some real examples of lobbying LINK . I know for a fact (considering your age and your expertise and your education) that you already know these things... but you pretend not to know them, in the hope of winning an UN-winnable debate. This is common knowledge and the majority of the US population is FOR getting money out of politics. You would be against that only if you would have a lot to lose by changing the corrupt system. In conclusion, you are pro Corruption.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
Did you know there were professional lobbyists that helped get the vote approved to abolish slavery? If it wasn't for the lobbyists, we could still have slavery today. So why do you think that things that are lobbied for are always bad things? Can you name one lobby that actually changed votes in congress to have a law passed that turned out to be a bad idea? Money is in politics and it's here to stay. It allows poor people to compete against rich people when attempting to be elected to office. Those poor people can get government matching funds if they abide by certain restrictions when accepting donations. So how else would a virtually unknown candidate get known so people will vote for him/her unless they had money to advertise their candidacy? Only the rich would be elected if donations were not allowed.
ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment
Did you know there were professional lobbyists that helped get the vote approved to abolish slavery? If it wasn't for the lobbyists, we could still have slavery today. So why do you think that things that are lobbied for are always bad things? Can you name one lobby that actually changed votes in congress to have a law passed that turned out to be a bad idea? Money is in politics and it's here to stay. It allows poor people to compete against rich people when attempting to be elected to office. Those poor people can get government matching funds if they abide by certain restrictions when accepting donations. So how else would a virtually unknown candidate get known so people will vote for him/her unless they had money to advertise their candidacy? Only the rich would be elected if donations were not allowed.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
yes, i also watched Spielberg's movie about Lincoln. Did you know that if it weren't for lobbying you could have abolished slavery at the same time that France did? You are actually trying to make a case for why corruption is a good thing for society and i find this very funny. Publicly funded elections are always an option. Corruption is not the only way and the majority of the US citizens agree LINK . So instead of trying to convince me that corruption is a good thing (which will never happen) you should try convincing the 90% of US citizens that agree with me on this.
ReplyVote up (91)down (108)
Original comment
yes, i also watched Spielberg's movie about Lincoln. Did you know that if it weren't for lobbying you could have abolished slavery at the same time that France did? You are actually trying to make a case for why corruption is a good thing for society and i find this very funny. Publicly funded elections are always an option. Corruption is not the only way and the majority of the US citizens agree LINK . So instead of trying to convince me that corruption is a good thing (which will never happen) you should try convincing the 90% of US citizens that agree with me on this.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
So as it stands now, you cannot provide me with any bill that was approved because of lobbying that turned out to be real bad. That means this problem is only in your imagination and does have the potential to exist but doesn't really happen. In my opinion, if it has happened, it's rare because the citizens would prevent the re-election of those politicians.
ReplyVote up (110)down (93)
Original comment
So as it stands now, you cannot provide me with any bill that was approved because of lobbying that turned out to be real bad. That means this problem is only in your imagination and does have the potential to exist but doesn't really happen. In my opinion, if it has happened, it's rare because the citizens would prevent the re-election of those politicians.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
A Fistful of Dollars: Lobbying and the Financial Crisis >>>> Has lobbying by financial institutions contributed to the financial crisis? This paper uses detailed information on financial institutions’ lobbying and mortgage lending activities to answer this question. We find that lobbying was associated with more risk-taking during 2000-07 and with worse outcomes in 2008. In particular, lenders lobbying more intensively on issues related to mortgage lending and securitization (i) originated mortgages with higher loan-to-income ratios, (ii) securitized a faster growing proportion of their loans, and (iii) had faster growing originations of mortgages. Moreover, delinquency rates in 2008 were higher in areas where lobbying lenders’ mortgage lending grew faster. These lenders also experienced negative abnormal stock returns during the rescue of Bear Stearns and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, but positive abnormal returns when the bailout was announced. Finally, we find a higher bailout probability for lobbying lenders. These findings suggest that lending by politically active lenders played a role in accumulation of risks and thus contributed to the financial crisis. LINK .
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
A Fistful of Dollars: Lobbying and the Financial Crisis >>>> Has lobbying by financial institutions contributed to the financial crisis? This paper uses detailed information on financial institutions’ lobbying and mortgage lending activities to answer this question. We find that lobbying was associated with more risk-taking during 2000-07 and with worse outcomes in 2008. In particular, lenders lobbying more intensively on issues related to mortgage lending and securitization (i) originated mortgages with higher loan-to-income ratios, (ii) securitized a faster growing proportion of their loans, and (iii) had faster growing originations of mortgages. Moreover, delinquency rates in 2008 were higher in areas where lobbying lenders’ mortgage lending grew faster. These lenders also experienced negative abnormal stock returns during the rescue of Bear Stearns and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, but positive abnormal returns when the bailout was announced. Finally, we find a higher bailout probability for lobbying lenders. These findings suggest that lending by politically active lenders played a role in accumulation of risks and thus contributed to the financial crisis. LINK .
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
The article you linked specifically says it's anecdotal evidence which means it has a high probability of not being true. Of course you didn't quote that part. If you want to know the truth, it was President Clinton's fault -- a democrat. LINK He increased home ownership starting in 1994 when he directed the HUD secretary to come up with a plan. The plan estimated benefiting 600,000 families in just the first 5 years. So after this evidence, do you still stand by your claim that it was lobbying that caused the housing bubble?
ReplyVote up (104)down (88)
Original comment
The article you linked specifically says it's anecdotal evidence which means it has a high probability of not being true. Of course you didn't quote that part. If you want to know the truth, it was President Clinton's fault -- a democrat. LINK He increased home ownership starting in 1994 when he directed the HUD secretary to come up with a plan. The plan estimated benefiting 600,000 families in just the first 5 years. So after this evidence, do you still stand by your claim that it was lobbying that caused the housing bubble?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
anecdotal means: Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis. Reports from Syria can also be considered anecdotal evidence, Reports that Israel is poisoning the olive orchard of the Palestinians can also be considered anecdotal, but that doesn't mean these reports are not true, because they are true. I'm not saying that Clinton had nothing to do with it, I'm saying that this DEREGULATION of the financial sector was fueled by lobby money since the 90's until 2008. Bush could have stopped it... or at least he could have stopped making it worst than it already was, but lobby money always gets what it wants, so yes i still stand by my claim. Whether it stared under bush or Clinton makes no difference to me. PS: the Iraq war was also started because of Lobby/corruption: LINK
ReplyVote up (104)down (100)
Original comment
anecdotal means: Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis. Reports from Syria can also be considered anecdotal evidence, Reports that Israel is poisoning the olive orchard of the Palestinians can also be considered anecdotal, but that doesn't mean these reports are not true, because they are true. I'm not saying that Clinton had nothing to do with it, I'm saying that this DEREGULATION of the financial sector was fueled by lobby money since the 90's until 2008. Bush could have stopped it... or at least he could have stopped making it worst than it already was, but lobby money always gets what it wants, so yes i still stand by my claim. Whether it stared under bush or Clinton makes no difference to me. PS: the Iraq war was also started because of Lobby/corruption: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
And you say the Iraq war was a bad thing? We removed a tyrannical dictator and liberated a country. People did die but how many more would have died if we didn't remove the dictator? Remember that Saddam was convicted and hanged for crimes against humanity and the killing of hundreds of thousands of people. So would the world be in a better place today if the war in Iraq did not happen? Is that what you think?
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
And you say the Iraq war was a bad thing? We removed a tyrannical dictator and liberated a country. People did die but how many more would have died if we didn't remove the dictator? Remember that Saddam was convicted and hanged for crimes against humanity and the killing of hundreds of thousands of people. So would the world be in a better place today if the war in Iraq did not happen? Is that what you think?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
yes! that is what i think! how many Americans are dying in Iraq every month? because of WMD or because of oil? wasn't that evil dictator backed up by the USA in the Iraq Iran war? wasn't Iran backed by the USA in the same war? should we go into the history of the middle east and how it was shaped by the USA/UK oil interest ans OIL lobby?
ReplyVote up (91)down (114)
Original comment
yes! that is what i think! how many Americans are dying in Iraq every month? because of WMD or because of oil? wasn't that evil dictator backed up by the USA in the Iraq Iran war? wasn't Iran backed by the USA in the same war? should we go into the history of the middle east and how it was shaped by the USA/UK oil interest ans OIL lobby?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
... i can't believe you're trying to make a case for Corruption/lobbying and how that's a good thing. 90% of your countrymen agree with me.
ReplyVote up (78)down (103)
Original comment
... i can't believe you're trying to make a case for Corruption/lobbying and how that's a good thing. 90% of your countrymen agree with me.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
You are making corruption and lobbying the same thing. They are different words and not synonyms. I do not agree with corruption but I do see a purpose for lobbying.
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
You are making corruption and lobbying the same thing. They are different words and not synonyms. I do not agree with corruption but I do see a purpose for lobbying.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1900 days ago)
lobby=corruption LINK . It's just 2 different words for the same thing. I knew from the start that you will not agree.
ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment
lobby=corruption LINK . It's just 2 different words for the same thing. I knew from the start that you will not agree.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1899 days ago)
excellentt logic, So you obviously agree with me that the whole ipcc process is corruption personified..wwf greenpiece, all those chuggers along for the ride well i agree with you, we should just stop the gravy train NOW, stop the public funding of shady enviromental groups NOW,have a honest public debate NOW.......
ReplyVote up (128)down (91)
Original comment
excellentt logic, So you obviously agree with me that the whole ipcc process is corruption personified..wwf greenpiece, all those chuggers along for the ride well i agree with you, we should just stop the gravy train NOW, stop the public funding of shady enviromental groups NOW,have a honest public debate NOW.......
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1899 days ago)
although i can't agree with you that the IPCC is corruption personified... i agree with you when you say that public funding of shady environmental groups should not be funded... but we may not agree on who those groups are. As for the corruption=lobby... turns out i just gave up on that idea... turns out that cengland0 is right, lobby is not corruption because it's legal, if lobby would have been illegal it would have been called corruption, therefore there is no proof of corruption in Washington but only proof of lobby and we all know that lobby is ok. Once again cengland0, i want to apologize for not seeing this obvious fact from the start... i would have spared us both a lot of time.
ReplyVote up (103)down (98)
Original comment
although i can't agree with you that the IPCC is corruption personified... i agree with you when you say that public funding of shady environmental groups should not be funded... but we may not agree on who those groups are. As for the corruption=lobby... turns out i just gave up on that idea... turns out that cengland0 is right, lobby is not corruption because it's legal, if lobby would have been illegal it would have been called corruption, therefore there is no proof of corruption in Washington but only proof of lobby and we all know that lobby is ok. Once again cengland0, i want to apologize for not seeing this obvious fact from the start... i would have spared us both a lot of time.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1899 days ago)
your welcome, however what i meant was "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". lobbying is a lucrative profession nowadays and enviromentalism is no exception, read what those longtime members that have resigned from greenpeace,wwf and the rspca etc have to say about the militancy and corruption. (sorry no links you will have to google it youself)
ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment
your welcome, however what i meant was "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". lobbying is a lucrative profession nowadays and enviromentalism is no exception, read what those longtime members that have resigned from greenpeace,wwf and the rspca etc have to say about the militancy and corruption. (sorry no links you will have to google it youself)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1899 days ago)
hey what can i say... if it's legal it must be OK! right? this seems to be the conclusion of the conversation...
ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment
hey what can i say... if it's legal it must be OK! right? this seems to be the conclusion of the conversation...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1899 days ago)
That's right. If it's legal than it's okay. Perhaps some legal activities could border on not being morally right but if you think they are wrong, you should work to fix the laws to make it illegal. If lobbying becomes illegal, we will have to sequester our representatives and senators and not allow them to talk or discuss the issues with anyone else. They must remain isolated throughout their entire elected term. See how ridiculous that sounds?
ReplyVote up (102)down (107)
Original comment
That's right. If it's legal than it's okay. Perhaps some legal activities could border on not being morally right but if you think they are wrong, you should work to fix the laws to make it illegal. If lobbying becomes illegal, we will have to sequester our representatives and senators and not allow them to talk or discuss the issues with anyone else. They must remain isolated throughout their entire elected term. See how ridiculous that sounds?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1899 days ago)
yes, it does sound ridiculous. i couldn't have said it in a more ridiculous way than you did... kudos.
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
yes, it does sound ridiculous. i couldn't have said it in a more ridiculous way than you did... kudos.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1900 days ago)
Try something that is designed to define words like this LINK and this LINK and it should be clear those words are not synonymous. You could have a couple corrupt air conditioner repair men but that doesn't mean AC repair men = corruption. So like I said before, if you have proof of corruption in our political system, let us know so we can fix it. You have never provided any proof but keep saying it exists. You are like a broken record.
ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment
Try something that is designed to define words like this LINK and this LINK and it should be clear those words are not synonymous. You could have a couple corrupt air conditioner repair men but that doesn't mean AC repair men = corruption. So like I said before, if you have proof of corruption in our political system, let us know so we can fix it. You have never provided any proof but keep saying it exists. You are like a broken record.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1899 days ago)
why do i even bother? i give up! there is no corruption in Washington... it's the way you said it was. I was wrong and you are right. i apologize for the pointless conversation.
ReplyVote up (107)down (105)
Original comment
why do i even bother? i give up! there is no corruption in Washington... it's the way you said it was. I was wrong and you are right. i apologize for the pointless conversation.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1899 days ago)
It's about time you finally realized that I was right and you were wrong. Now wasn't that easy? Actually, I'm not saying there's NO corruption in Washington. What I am saying is that it's illegal and anyone caught will be prosecuted and you do not have any proof that it's happening because if you did we would have done something about it already.
ReplyVote up (106)down (94)
Original comment
It's about time you finally realized that I was right and you were wrong. Now wasn't that easy? Actually, I'm not saying there's NO corruption in Washington. What I am saying is that it's illegal and anyone caught will be prosecuted and you do not have any proof that it's happening because if you did we would have done something about it already.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1899 days ago)
this LINK is not for you, it's for the rest of the readers. It's crap (as you like to say) so don't bother looking at it from top to bottom.
ReplyVote up (109)down (91)
Original comment
this LINK is not for you, it's for the rest of the readers. It's crap (as you like to say) so don't bother looking at it from top to bottom.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Submitted as a guest (1900 days ago)
... L
ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment
... L
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Wild elephants thank the men who rescued their baby
Wild elephants thank the men who rescued their baby
World Cup 2018 - Japanese fans clean up after win against Colombia
World Cup 2018 - Japanese fans clean up after win against Colombia
100 thousand march in anti-Brexit rally
100 thousand march in anti-Brexit rally
What can Britain learn from Norway?
What can Britain learn from Norway?
Piers Morgan challenges Ann Coulter over migrant "child actors"
Piers Morgan challenges Ann Coulter over migrant "child actors"