Nineteen Eleven

Rob wrote: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.

no, im talking about a 20 year study nasa did on the atmosphere via satellite. great, now every single **** link is a link to spencers shit. i was gonna link you, but i just dont feel like finding it when i have to go through all that crap.

also, we need to occupy japan again. this shit is getting out of hand.

and alex, i didnt say sanest option, i said honest option. i would rather have honesty than a liar regardless of there beliefs in power. like i said, he has some crazy ideas, but that doesnt mean he can act on them. he knows that, and so do you.

unpro wrote:and alex, i didnt say sanest option, i said honest option. i would rather have honesty than a liar regardless of there beliefs in power. like i said, he has some crazy ideas, but that doesnt mean he can act on them. he knows that, and so do you.

I would never support someone who has bigoted and immoral views, though.

morals are subjective to current beliefs and views in society.

either way, all your other options are blatant liars with a penchant for moral ineptitude and bigoted ideas as well. least this guy admits his views and sticks with them, unlike the rest of the current lineup of people running.

I gave up reading this thread about half way through, so forgive me if I reiterate anything that has been said.

Occupy Wall Street is based on facts that a tiny group of extraordinarily wealthy people control a disproportionate amount of the worlds resources, governments, corporations, etc. and they continue to do so by manipulating laws and regulations.

with that said...

The movement has been in the spotlight worldwide for quite some time now. However, unless you're reading some independent, 3rd party media that main-stream America has never heard of, you'll notice that OWS gets shunned in nearly every city, and the only things that are observed tend to be the radical and usually ludicrous demands of the movement's "1%" such as the minimum wage increase and the slew of others that I honestly haven't paid much attention to.

Any time people organize themselves for the purpose of spreading information, the news is there to pick up on the "most interesting stories of the day"
These moments usually consist of the most radical, loudest, and usually idiotic guy with a loud speaker who thinks that he will be the next American revolutionary, spewing his nonsense that the majority of the people involved don't fully agree with.

Ugh it's late.. I was going to go on for a while about corporate influence in government and media, but I don't have it in me. I think it's common knowledge that most TV stations are owned by an astonishingly low amount of corporations and that CNN/Fox are really the same thing. Personally I think this movement needed to start on the basis of finding a better way to spread unbiased information.

I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not, I'm just here to say that people need to spend more time reading.
/end rambling rant.

james- wrote:Ugh it's late.. I was going to go on for a while about corporate influence in government and media, but I don't have it in me. I think it's common knowledge that most TV stations are owned by an astonishingly low amount of corporations and that CNN/Fox are really the same thing. Personally I think this movement needed to start on the basis of finding a better way to spread unbiased information.

I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not, I'm just here to say that people need to spend more time reading.
/end rambling rant.

This is one of the main problems. The media is run by the corporations being protested against. So of course the stories are going to be warped in the worst possible light, assuming they get reported at all.

unpro wrote:morals are subjective to current beliefs and views in society.

And some morals are superior to others.

either way, all your other options are blatant liars with a penchant for moral ineptitude and bigoted ideas as well. least this guy admits his views and sticks with them, unlike the rest of the current lineup of people running.

Obama repealed DADT and is at least trying to revamp health care so people aren't allowed to die preventable deaths solely because they don't make enough money. I call those acts miles ahead of what Ron Paul would ever do with his time as president.

and pl0x don't bring a presidential debate in here.

he encourages preventable deaths by allowing guns and grenades to flow into mexico against the wishes of gun store owners and ATF/Border patrol field agents, keeping iraq and afghanistan open theaters of operation, and initiating new theaters of combat in africa. he has a peace prize, and hes done nothing to justify it but cause more deaths.

DADT was on its way out soon regardless of who was in office. it couldnt stand up to scrutiny and if it wasnt the president repealing it, the courts would have soon enough.

and the healthcare reform is getting thrown out in courts(the major parts he wanted that is). there are simpler ways to ease the burden of health care costs than forcing insurance upon the entire population. rushing it caused a massive backlash that has now has probably set real reform of our medical system back years.

to late james.

ohwait, you just said some morals are superior to others.

you realize the hilarity in that statement right? the sheer horror that kind of thinking has unleashed on the world right?

unpro wrote:

no, im talking about a 20 year study nasa did on the atmosphere via satellite. great, now every single **** link is a link to spencers shit. i was gonna link you, but i just dont feel like finding it when i have to go through all that crap.

lol dude when you told me in vent "climate change theory just got destroyed" I asked you what you were talking about, and you linked me the Spencer article... come on. EDIT: actually I don't think you even did that. You linked me to the Forbes article that said Spencer's article destroyed climate change theory.

REGARDLESS, NASA scientists have specifically said the conclusions you're trying to draw can't be made from the data. It only got interpreted as evidence against climate change by Spencer, got exploited and put on a pedestal by climate change deniers, only to be struck down by NASA scientists distancing themselves from those wild misinterpretations.