RFK Jr. is a great messenger.

[glen123098]

I went to a local college last night to hear Robert Kennedy speak. He spoke about the environment and jobs. He said that we could be creating green jobs if we could get off oil and into other forms of energy such as electric and wind energy. He says right now the reason it is not so efficient is because they have to compete with big oil who own the congressmen. Big oil don't have to pay for the messes they make. In other words their profits are private, but their costs are public. Kennedy said in order to level the market make it so that big oil and coal have to pay for the damage to the environment they did. He also says that updating the grid structure to make room for green energy will create tons of jobs. Every thing he said made since. Which makes me wonder, why don't I ever hear congressmen or senators speak as clearly as he did? Is it that he is apart from the political machine? I really want Robert Kennedy Jr. to run for office someday, and I think his message of green jobs would resonate. If the democrats in congress could present a message as good as he did last night, they might do better in November. Any thoughts?

[wiggs]

1. Big fan here, ever since reading Crimes Against Nature. Dems ought to be able

to win elections on environmental issues ALONE. Kerry soft pedaled it in 2004 for some reason. It's important.

[ejpoeta]

2. you won't hear the congressfolk say it because....

they get money from the the people who like things as they are right now.

[stopbush]

3. He's full of shit when it comes to his work on behalf of the anti-vac cabal.

He needs to apologize for all of the Jenny McCarthy-level bullshit he's aired over the years about vaccines causing autism. Anyone so easily duped and so anti-science in their outlook on this issue needs a major makeover to be considered legit in my books.

[Viking12]

6. Indeed. His credibility slid into the sewer w/ that nonsense.

[earth mom]

7. RFK is RIGHT about the Autism epidemic. 1.5 MILLION BUCKS was awarded last week

for a case where vaccinations led to Autism.

There is MORE to come for all the kids who were poisoned by the greedy pharmaceutical giants!

HA HA!!! I am laughing my ass off at all of you naysayers because you will no doubt be so jealous of that won't you!!! :evilgrin:

Even though 1.5 million will NEVER EVER be enough of a price to pay for ruining a childs life and their families lives!!!

Put THAT into your nasty vindictive pipe and smoke it!

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. He isn't right, sorry; none of the medical evidence supports the vaccine hypothesis.

In fact it comprehensively refutes it. What a court may or may not have found in a single case has no bearing on the science involved.

[earth mom]

10. ONE POINT FIVE MILLION dude! Sorry but you can NOT argue with that!

:evilgrin:

:rofl:

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. Sure you can

http://www.helium.com/items/1959957-courts-rule-against-vaccine-autism-link

The US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) will pay over $1.5 million to the family of a child whose parents allege acquired autism after routine vaccinations in 2000. CBS called the payment to the family of Hannah Poling the “first court award in a vaccine-autism claim” (9 September 2010, CBS).

However, the payment does not acknowledge a vaccine-autism link. The payment was made for a mitochondrial disorder and encephalopathy which fall under a category of so-called “Table” injuries for which parents do not need to show proof that the vaccine aggravated the condition as long as it appeared within a certain amount of time after vaccination. The VICP, which was established in 1988 (US Court of Federal Claims), has made thousands of such payments since its establishment. The same court found no compelling evidence of a link between vaccination and autism in a ruling last year, which was upheld in a federal appeals court on the same day as the Poling payout decision, (27 August 2010, Associated Press).


http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/us_vaccine_payout_provokes_con.html

[stopbush]

13. Bullshit. The settlement made clear that the autism was the result

of a rare preexisting condition this child had. The vaccines didn't "cause" or "lead to" her autism in any sense whatsoever.

Read the decision. In acknowledging the sequence of events, the government in its settlement said that the vaccine did not "cause" Hannah's autism, but rather aggravated a rare mitochondrial disorder that "resulted in" autism. The family agreed to that wording in the settlement. That is a very big distinction to be made. Some people are allergic to peanuts. That doesn't mean that peanuts "cause" an allergic reaction in everyone who eats them. It does mean that someone who has an existing allergy to peanuts could have an allergic reaction that resulted from their eating peanuts. A person who is not allergic to peanuts will not have an allergic reaction to eating peanuts.

And, BTW - the lifetime award to this family will be closer to $20M, not the initial $1.5M. That still doesn't mean that the vaccines led to her autism.

[stopbush]

14. You're just another science hater.

You prefer to see time, money and energy WASTED on believing that vaccines cause autism, rather than moving past the woo-woo and looking for the real causes.

Science has disproved every supposed link to vaccines and autism, but people like you continue to flog a dead horse. Why? Embarrassed that you were taken in by a bunch of crackpots? Unwilling and unable to learn?

[Octafish]

4. A real Democrat who's stood up to the fascists, racists and authoritarian turds.

Saw him at Wayne State University in 2007.

[mod mom]

12. he was willing to go on record after reviewing the evidence & call out the fraudulent '04

election. Hats off to him!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Too bad about all that anti-vaccine woo woo bullshit.

:shrug:

[earth mom]

8. RFK JR. 2012. Let's get rid of the DLC!!! Simple as that!!!

:woohoo:

[stopbush]

15. Obama/Biden in 2012. Let's keep the science deniers away from the WH.

[Gregorian]

16. He gets it. He gets the "context". To answer your question-

The economy relies on resources. So it's economy OR ecology. You cannot have both. (Argue amongst yourselves). Another way to put it is economy relies upon growth. Growth cannot be sustained once world population is at it's present emergency size.

So, politicians must spout growth, or they are essentially calling for the death of a society.

However, the dilemma in which we are face now is such that with growth comes death of a planet.

You can argue. But you can't fight the limitation of the natural world. RFK jr. is one of only a number I can count on one hand who actually uttered the term "overpopulation". Ever. It's so cursed a thought, so full of seriousness, people just want to forget that there really is a giant pile of gorilla shit over in the corner of their living room.

The context is that we are faced with a decision to make. We can't continue to grow. And almost everything that comes from within that context makes a lot of sense. But only if you're eyes are open. Otherwise it sounds like heresy.