Nineteen Eleven

Rob wrote:You won't succeed when it comes to unpro though. I've already gone over climate change with him. HOPELESS.

i accept humans might play a slight role in global warming, but based on studies from CERN and NASA i tend to disagree that we are responsible to the level that is said we are. i dont see how basing my opinions on scientific evidence from 2 of the best resources for environmental studies is hopeless.


either way, i dont wanna watch a 20min vid when a friend is over. ill get back to this later.

acetamino wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Corporations are people, bro.

unpro wrote:i get info from a variety of sources.

ill watch the vid later, but from the little bit i listened to it basically sounds like hes regurgitating what libertarians have been saying for years. that might change past the few minutes i listened.

Libertarians should love this movement, honestly. Last time I checked, they were against a government that granted special favors to corporations, and corporate corruption. Why this movement has been labeled as a solely liberal movement is absolutely beyond me. It just goes to show how stupid everyone is as they judge the worthiness of a cause based on the political leanings of its participants rather than the merits of its intent.

That being said, much of this movement is not aligned with libertarianism, but there's still much middle ground.

unpro wrote:
i accept humans might play a slight role in global warming, but based on studies from CERN and NASA i tend to disagree that we are responsible to the level that is said we are. i dont see how basing my opinions on scientific evidence from 2 of the best resources for environmental studies is hopeless.

I'll address this tomorrow. Wait why am I getting suckered into the same thing I just preached against?

Since we're talking numbers...

alex kirk wrote:

unpro wrote:i get info from a variety of sources.

ill watch the vid later, but from the little bit i listened to it basically sounds like hes regurgitating what libertarians have been saying for years. that might change past the few minutes i listened.

Libertarians should love this movement, honestly. Last time I checked, they were against a government that granted special favors to corporations, and corporate corruption. Why this movement has been labeled as a solely liberal movement is absolutely beyond me. It just goes to show how stupid everyone is as they judge the worthiness of a cause based on the political leanings of its participants rather than the merits of its intent.

That being said, much of this movement is not aligned with libertarianism, but there's still much middle ground.

probably because the majority of the reporting and the people that get interviewed have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and seem to be demanding free shit while not actually having an opinion or idea based on rational thought.

i pretty much watched all the vid, and yea.. that guys a closet libertarian.

either way, if you guys want perhaps not the best choice but at least an honest choice, vote ron paul. he might not be the sanest on the board, but he is at least mostly honest, which is more than can be said for any other person running for president right now.

unpro wrote:probably because the majority of the reporting and the people that get interviewed have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and seem to be demanding free shit while not actually having an opinion or idea based on rational thought.

And who is at fault there? The media companies? Who controls them? Oh...yeah...

i pretty much watched all the vid, and yea.. that guys a closet libertarian.

Dude is an uber liberal...He isn't remotely libertarian, at least not in the economic sphere. He expresses his support for Obama, his appreciation for Sweden and other socialist nations, is for aiding other nations (like Haiti), is an environmentalist, etc.

either way, if you guys want perhaps not the best choice but at least an honest choice, vote ron paul. he might not be the sanest on the board, but he is at least mostly honest, which is more than can be said for any other person running for president right now.

For personal liberty, anti-choice, and against a federal mandate that looks at homosexuals as equal to heterosexuals under the law (he's okay with leaving that up to the states), okay with people dying who can't afford chemotherapy.

Joke. Jokejokejoke. Big joke. Huge joke. No thanks.

Is the NASA article you're referring to unpro the one by Roy Spencer? Because if it is, I can tell you the article has zero merit. I'll start with this nice tidbit as a preview:

It's not a NASA report.