Cancer Bulbs

[Dr.Who]

Dow Chemical pays politicans money, pot heads don't so much...simple and easy reason

Dow pays that money in the form of legal campaign contributions. When the politicians look the other way (that is what you are implying right?) then who is guilty? I would say whichever party knew that they money was connected to the "lookin the other way", I.e. both. But it is much harder to prove that a campaign contribution came with expectations of favors than to prove that favors were given. Stop the favors and you will stop the expectation that contributions will come with favors. The first step is to write laws that make it illegal for politicans to accept money for favors. We see it every sihgle day!!

 

[Dr.Who]

its was mostly aimed at gipper, but overall many republicans who are like him.

I bet that politicans on both sides of the aisle accept campaign contributions from companeis like Dow and that politicians on both sides of the aisle look the other way to pretty much an equal extent. Lets suppose that the amount of favors given could be measured by the amount of money received. Don't both dems and pubs get about the same amount of money from companies like Dow?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Dow pays that money in the form of legal campaign contributions. When the politicians look the other way (that is what you are implying right?) then who is guilty? I would say whichever party knew that they money was connected to the "lookin the other way", I.e. both. But it is much harder to prove that a campaign contribution came with expectations of favors than to prove that favors were given. Stop the favors and you will stop the expectation that contributions will come with favors. The first step is to write laws that make it illegal for politicans to accept money for favors. We see it every single day!!

legal means nothing, just because a bribe is done with a wink and a understanding does not make it less a bribe. And yes both sides get them, and often from the same groups. But one side gets a whole lot more of them from polluters...and its not the Dems.

 

[Dr.Who]

legal means nothing, just because a bribe is done with a wink and a understanding does not make it less a bribe. And yes both sides get them, and often from the same groups. But one side gets a whole lot more of them from polluters...and its not the Dems.

Doing a quick search for ""biggest polluters" right or wrong the first name that came up was BP.

Then doing a quick search to see if I could find a list of how much BP gave to each party (I did not find that list)) I found these two articles:

This one implies that only Obama received large sums of cash from BP.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/05/us-politico-obama-bp-idUSTRE64420A20100505

While this one implies that only pubs received cash from BP.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53428.html

But this story tells us that BP was excluded from environmental oversight.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/29/revealed-stimulus-helps-fund-nations-biggest-polluter/

Now, let us suppose that BP had only given money to Obama and not to the pubs too. And then that Obama had exempted them from oversight. Do you suppose that the pubs would have made a big deal out of that? The two party system guarantees that one party cannot show gross favoritism without the other side crying foul - unless both sides are bought off.

Frankly I just dont believe that only once side gets the lions share of bribes. Depending on who is in power they each get what it takes to grease the wheels.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Doing a quick search for ""biggest polluters" right or wrong the first name that came up was BP.

Then doing a quick search to see if I could find a list of how much BP gave to each party (I did not find that list)) I found these two articles:

This one implies that only Obama received large sums of cash from BP.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/05/us-politico-obama-bp-idUSTRE64420A20100505

While this one implies that only pubs received cash from BP.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53428.html

But this story tells us that BP was excluded from environmental oversight.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/29/revealed-stimulus-helps-fund-nations-biggest-polluter/

Now, let us suppose that BP had only given money to Obama and not to the pubs too. And then that Obama had exempted them from oversight. Do you suppose that the pubs would have made a big deal out of that? The two party system guarantees that one party cannot show gross favoritism without the other side crying foul - unless both sides are bought off.

Frankly I just dont believe that only once side gets the lions share of bribes. Depending on who is in power they each get what it takes to grease the wheels.

there is a reason I am a member of the 3rd party ...I simply vote Dem in the presidential election because we don't have anyone running for it yet...and the republicans have become a party of nut jobs.

And out of the top 10 biggest donors...most go to republicans..the only ones that where not, where unions..( thus of course republicans attack the unions...the biggest funding of there party) and pretend its about fiscal policy.

 

[Dr.Who]

And out of the top 10 biggest donors...most go to republicans..the only ones that where not, where unions..( thus of course republicans attack the unions...the biggest funding of there party) and pretend its about fiscal policy.

Can you clarify what you are saying and support it?

 

[Gipper]

Can you clarify what you are saying and support it?

He can't because he is wrong...as usual.

Go here http://www.opensecrets.org/influence/index.php

Here is a list of the top spenders from that website and they tend to pass around the dollars to both parties. It is very likely the Dems get more money from the biggest contributors than the Rs. But, facts and liberals do not know each other.

Lobbying Client Total
US Chamber of Commerce $755,875,680
American Medical Assn $247,647,500
General Electric $245,640,000
AARP $202,752,064
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $199,713,920
American Hospital Assn $198,827,055
AT&T Inc $168,397,725
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $164,868,295
Northrop Grumman $161,865,253
Exxon Mobil $159,702,742
National Assn of Realtors $158,997,380
Verizon Communications $153,729,841
Edison Electric Institute $150,775,999
Business Roundtable $145,404,000
Boeing Co $143,474,310
Lockheed Martin $138,310,053
Southern Co $121,870,694
General Motors $119,959,170
PG&E Corp $118,520,000
Pfizer Inc $111,157,268
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

It is amazing what liberals base their political views on. It is almost always based on misinformation they have chosen to accept from the left wing media.

 

[Dr.Who]

He can't because he is wrong...as usual.

Go here http://www.opensecrets.org/influence/index.php

Here is a list of the top spenders from that website and they tend to pass around the dollars to both parties. It is very likely the Dems get more money from the biggest contributors than the Rs. But, facts and liberals do not know each other.




It is amazing what liberals base their political views on. It is almost always based on misinformation they have chosen to accept from the left wing media.

Hmmm? You did not show that polluters give more or even equal amounts to both parties. You claimed it is likely.

Can YOU support your statements?

I would add that if it is found that dems get more money from polluters than pubs that might be because they require more money to go against their beliefs rather than that they grant greater favors.

 

[Gipper]

Hmmm? You did not show that polluters give more or even equal amounts to both parties. You claimed it is likely.

Can YOU support your statements?

I would add that if it is found that dems get more money from polluters than pubs that might be because they require more money to go against their beliefs rather than that they grant greater favors.

Polluters....ugh...who are the polluters? The premise is a false one, but thank you for clarifying.

If a company pollutes the environment in America unlike nearly every where else in the world, they are hounded by the EPA, prosecuted by the government, fined, possibly shut down, and potentially have their senior executives facing prison time. This is appropriate when used properly. However, if a company follows the laws, statues, and numerous regulations related to pollutants, they are NOT polluters.

The firms listed on the list above, are some of the largest multinational corporations in the world. They most certainly are dealing with pollutants in their operations. For example, GE and GM are tied very closely to this administration. Do you really think they give all their political contributions to the Rs?

 

[Dr.Who]

Polluters....ugh...who are the polluters? The premise is a false one, but thank you for clarifying.

If a company pollutes the environment in America unlike nearly every where else in the world, they are hounded by the EPA, prosecuted by the government, fined, possibly shut down, and potentially have their senior executives facing prison time. This is appropriate when used properly. However, if a company follows the laws, statues, and numerous regulations related to pollutants, they are NOT polluters.

The firms listed on the list above, are some of the largest multinational corporations in the world. They most certainly are dealing with pollutants in their operations. For example, GE and GM are tied very closely to this administration. Do you really think they give all their political contributions to the Rs?

As you say, if a company follows the rules then they are clearly not polluters. Well, if they follow the rules and if the rules make any sense.

According to this article linked earlier:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/29/revealed-stimulus-helps-fund-nations-biggest-polluter/

Some companies just don't have to follow the rules, they are exempt. If the rules make sense then no one should be exempt. The exemptions are one set of the abuses; abuses that are handed out it seems as a result of donations.

The other set of abuses are built right into the rules. Recently I read and posted how the gulf oil spill was the result of rules that defined clay pumped up from the ocean bottom then dumped overboard as pollution (though clearly clay should not be pollution) but the same clay purged from the well before making it aboard ship is not pollution.

 

[Gipper]

As you say, if a company follows the rules then they are clearly not polluters. Well, if they follow the rules and if the rules make any sense.

According to this article linked earlier:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/29/revealed-stimulus-helps-fund-nations-biggest-polluter/

Some companies just don't have to follow the rules, they are exempt. If the rules make sense then no one should be exempt. The exemptions are one set of the abuses; abuses that are handed out it seems as a result of donations.

The other set of abuses are built right into the rules. Recently I read and posted how the gulf oil spill was the result of rules that defined clay pumped up from the ocean bottom then dumped overboard as pollution (though clearly clay should not be pollution) but the same clay purged from the well before making it aboard ship is not pollution.

The fact that the "rules" are screwy is not the fault of business. It is the fault of an overbearing omnipresent corrupt government run by foolish corrupt progressives.

 

[Dr.Who]

The fact that the "rules" are screwy is not the fault of business. It is the fault of an overbearing omnipresent corrupt government run by foolish corrupt progressives.

While what you say holds some truth it might be an exaggeration to think that the fault lies only with corrupt progressives.

The fault might be shared by uncorrupt progressives,




and republicans, and voters, and business.

 

[Dude111]

you fear your lightbulbs but could care less what chemicals companies spew into the air and dump in the water...typical.

Well lightbulbs we can sort of control... (Just use the older/BETTER ones)

We cant stop what they are doing in the sky unfornetly

 

[Pepper]

I've never seen such paranoia and anger over a light bulb.

 

[Dr.Who]

I've never seen such paranoia and anger over a light bulb.

Do you mean on the part of those who think regular bulbs are going to destroy the world and must be outlawed or those who fear the loss of light bulbs so much they are hoarding them?