Debunked: Bruce Lipton and The Biology of Belief

Status
Not open for further replies.
This was what I was questioning. I am in Florida. Going to highlands will not kill me or keep me from breeding. Random, natural selection, according to Darwinism wouldn't be a factor in wiping me out for only more attuned genetics to survive. If geneology enables this trait to continue through expression, It would be a product of the environment rather than survival of the fittest Natural selection implies cruel death culls the herd as the only means of evolution. Adaptive evolution implies otherwise. I remain perplexed.
It might not kill you but you are probably not as well adapted to working in a high altitude environment as someone whose ancestors wave been there for the last 10,000 years. This puts you at a competitive disadvantage in terms of producing food, providing shelter and attracting a mate. If the descendants of the current adapted population can bring one more child to maturity than you and your descendants can then your descendants will be quickly replaced in the population. If you read the studies I linked to you will find that on a genetic level all three populations (Ethiopian, Himalayan, and Andean) have different adaptations. It's not just a matter of living at altitude for a few weeks until your blood hemoglobin increases.
 
Lipton does a pretty good job of explaining the inner workings of a cell. I found it hard to refute his claim that the brain of the cell is not the nucleus but rather the environment. And I've yet to find a decent peer review of that claim. James Watson was criticised for being a bigot. That doesn't diminish the work he did with Crick.

Lipton's talk of the environment and cell membrane being the "brain" rather than the nucleus is something that I feel is a matter of perspective that is irrelevant to his argument. Proteins are what make a cell membrane able to control what goes into and out of the cell and interact with cues from the environment. Those proteins are made out of codes written into the DNA. Those proteins made by the DNA help create systems that will talk back to the DNA and regulate which proteins get made, how many, and when it all happens. It seems silly to say that one is more dominant or important than the other. From his perspective, you can see that the membrane can certainly be analogous to a brain, but the nucleus also stores information and directs everything that is built within a cell, so it could also be called a "brain" of the cell.
Others already addressed your questions on sherpas getting oxygen at high altitude, but this article is also a good read on the topic.
http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/climbing/tibet-altitude-sickness.htm

Random, natural selection, according to Darwinism wouldn't be a factor in wiping me out for only more attuned genetics to survive. If geneology enables this trait to continue through expression, It would be a product of the environment rather than survival of the fittest Natural selection implies cruel death culls the herd as the only means of evolution. Adaptive evolution implies otherwise. I remain perplexed.

Natural selection is not really random. Mutation is random, natural selection just helps select the more successful mutations. But one thing to keep in mind is that evolution is not perfect, nor does it strive to be. I remember Lipton talking about natural selection and culling the herd in his book. Nature isn't always kind. Sometimes natural selection does cull the herd and that plays a major part in the evolution of a population. Sometimes other mechanisms of evolution play the major role and nature doesn't seem so cruel. But since evolution isn't perfect, culling the herd isn't really a good way to put it in most situations. Plenty of useless or even harmful traits can persist in populations because it doesn't harm the organism enough to prevent it from reproducing. Evolution is just fine with that. It's not the process of perfecting an organism through brutal selection that Lipton and others can misrepresent it as.
Just remember that all evolution begins at a genetic level. A mutation has to happen that can be passed down and spread throughout a population in order for evolution to take place. The mutation is, indeed, random. Lipton's misconception in his book comes when he calls all of evolution random. Mutation is just the beginning, but not every mutation makes it. Mutations that offer advantages persist while ones that are detrimental enough fade away. That, by definition, is not random. Natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift are some of the ways those mutations get selected for.
Let me know if you have any more questions or would something explained in more detail.
 
I would argue that society has been harmed more by beliefs that were once held as "truths" by science and popular culture than beliefs that are currently held as "woo woo".

For every idea that was ridiculed before being revered, there are a million that remain just plain wrong. Telling stories of how science has been wrong does not lend credence to any fringe theory that might be out there. Science has been wrong and will continue to be wrong about certain things on the future. That doesn't mean we should believe any idea that sounds appealing without first seeing what we can find using good science and reasoning.
 
For every idea that was ridiculed before being revered, there are a million that remain just plain wrong. Telling stories of how science has been wrong does not lend credence to any fringe theory that might be out there. Science has been wrong and will continue to be wrong about certain things on the future. That doesn't mean we should believe any idea that sounds appealing without first seeing what we can find using good science and reasoning.
Agreed, but it ALSO means that we should not readily accept what science tells, REGARDLESS OF THE GENERAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. Very often, the vast majority of the best minds in a particular field are an agreement on a particular aspect of their work, only to be proven wrong at a later date. So what are we to do? Well, in many things we can do our own research or rely on our own personal experience. That's why I find the whole premise of this site somewhat supercilious. Many of the beliefs, propositions, experiments, or phenomena that is supposedly "debunked" is nothing of the sort. Take Lipton for instance. The truth is that we DON'T KNOW exactly what happens in the incredibly complicated processes involving human development, DNA, and the interaction and influence of proteins on cell structure and process. I think the debate is fine and probably has some value, but to claim something (anything) has been definitively proven or disproven only "proves" that most humans are arrogant beyond belief. Since we know that our reality is nothing more than a manifestation of our consciousness AND that the ONLY thing we really "know" is that we seem to have "consciousness", I personally choose to create my own reality. You may disagree with my choice, but your reality is no more "real" than mine.
 
The old "science has changed its views as new evidence has been developed therefore what I believe in must be true" argument. Run Lipton's stuff past your sister, see if she supports you and ask her why.
Not a bad idea, but I can tell you right now she will dismiss it with a wave of her hand. I was discussing the use of Ibogaine for heroin addiction and asked her how she felt about her company researching it and bringing to the US market to help the millions of suffering addicts. She said the negative press they would receive from researching any of this class of drugs (hallucinogens) wouldn't be worth the risk. A statement confirming certain beliefs I hold about big pharma.
Unfortunately @Quantumbeliever I dont quite think this statement is accurate. There are things on this site that I agree with, and things that I dont. The vast majority of the posters here are the same way. With that said, Science, unlike belief (most of the time) allows for inaccuracies and being incorrect. Science actually enjoys being wrong because it allows for learning, for changing how the world and the universe is seen. Now.. the bad thing about that, honestly, is the way its delivered. Science tends to be presented as THIS IS HOW IT IS STFU.. when in reality, its THIS IS HOW IT IS...as far as we understand things right now aaaaaaand that may change when technology changes, or a new discovery is made.

Hubble (the man, not the machine), for example, proved that the universe is expanding (red shift). Up until that point, science believed the Universe was static or even shrinking. Hubble also proved that a lot of the Nebulae that Scientists had observed were actually entire galaxies. Science loves being wrong.. scientists may not always enjoy it, but they do accept it.. eventually. Look at all the crap Einstein went through with Relativity. It took decades. Einstein also said that Black Holes didnt exist... yet they have been show to exist.

This is where belief and science (as well as believers and this web site) butt heads Quantum. Belief requires no proof, therefore it can never be wrong. Science requires proof and -wants- to be wrong.. two sides of the same coin
Belief in science is a "belief" in itself. Particularly today in a world where science has been completely politicized and is controlled by the same who control Congress. Sorry. I don't have a lot of faith in what is bandied about as "science" today.
 
If
How so? Can you give some examples?



We already have more selective compounds that do the same thing as marijuana derived molecules, compounds that are easier to obtain and don't make researchers go through the trouble of obtaining an illegal substance. Marijuana has its potential as a medicine but there are much better and easier things to use, which is why researchers generally aren't very interested in it. Not because of politics or money, but because it isn't demonstrated to be as effective or as safe as other medications used for the same thing.
if you look at my post further down I give you a PERFECT example of how "science" is completely influenced by money and power. The example I used is Ibogaine that is still illegal in the US but shows great promise in the treatment of addiction. As I said, my sister is the Chief Medical Officer for a major pharmaceutical company. Granted, she doesn't make the decision as to which substances her company studies, but she told me flat out they would not look at Ibogaine due to;
1. High cost of synthesis
2. Negative publicity
 
So why is the belief that "fat is bad" not listed on "What's the harm?"
That's vaguely why I bunged a smiley. Vaguely.

Why not ask them?

I agree/believe with you that saturated fats do not necessarily affect heart disease. (This has been a forty-year relentless battle with my semi-vegetarian wife). Oh, she eats fish.

I also hold that one can always work off excess calories, and it is very important to widen the variety of one's diet and always remain very conscious of one's hydration. Huh, I've forgotten the thread. Oh, yeah.

Odd and contradictory. Subconscious software releases mods to one's operating system. Is that belief?

I can't see a way of establishing and explaining what actually happens, myself.

Not my field. (Legs it). :)
 
Last edited:
Going to highlands will not kill me or keep me from breeding.
You have proved this? Have you tried living at, say, 15,000 feet? It's a different experience from about 10,000 feet. It really gets very hard, even if you're fit. (Which I certainly am not. !5,000 feet would kill me in hours).
 
Not a bad idea, but I can tell you right now she will dismiss it with a wave of her hand.
So that's one more person versed in science and scientific principles telling you that you're wrong about something related to science. The logic you are advocating is people are telling me I'm wrong therefore I must be correct - Interesting approach to life. Do you use it in other areas besides science? Believe it or not sometimes when the overwhelming majority tells you that you are wrong, it's because you actually are wrong. As for Ibogaine, science has nothing to do with its legal status and its legal status goes a long way towards determining if a pharmaceutical company will spend capital studying the application and development of a drug. Pharmaceutical companies are not non-profit operations dedicated to pure research. How does the government not approving a drug you would like to made legal for use prove that the scientific process is flawed?

Edit: Corrected punctuation
 
Last edited:
There is a possibility that steps taken to avoid them could induce accidental dietary deficiencies in some people, surely?
Well perhaps in a few cases, but to say -
Food manufacturers began producing thousands of "low fat" or "reduced fat" foods. We, the general public, swallowed this garbage hook, line, and sinker. The "harm" caused by this flawed way of thinking cannot be overstated. There is no way to judge how many deaths could be attributed to this belief,
seems a little over the top.
It's not as if not eating a diet low in saturated fats immediately leads to fatal malnutrition or anything.
 
Agreed, but it ALSO means that we should not readily accept what science tells, REGARDLESS OF THE GENERAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. Very often, the vast majority of the best minds in a particular field are an agreement on a particular aspect of their work, only to be proven wrong at a later date. So what are we to do? Well, in many things we can do our own research or rely on our own personal experience. That's why I find the whole premise of this site somewhat supercilious. Many of the beliefs, propositions, experiments, or phenomena that is supposedly "debunked" is nothing of the sort. Take Lipton for instance. The truth is that we DON'T KNOW exactly what happens in the incredibly complicated processes involving human development, DNA, and the interaction and influence of proteins on cell structure and process. I think the debate is fine and probably has some value, but to claim something (anything) has been definitively proven or disproven only "proves" that most humans are arrogant beyond belief.

Science doesn't care about authority or consensus. Although consensus usually is based on the best available scientific evidence, science is based on what nature tells us. Yes, there is a lot that we don't know about human development, but we have mapped every singe step of development in simpler organisms like the roundworm, C. elegans. Human development has quite a bit of research around it as well. We know enough about development in other animals and humans to say that what Bruce Lipton touts in his books and talks is bunk. What about his statements remain valid, to you?

if you look at my post further down I give you a PERFECT example of how "science" is completely influenced by money and power.

I could just as well give you many examples of how selfless researchers could be. For example, Sterptococcus pneumoniae is the number one killer of elders in the U.S., it is normally found in the human nasopharynx but can cause pneumonia, meningitis, and septicemia in immunocompromised people. Any of those things happening in an elder is bad news. You probably have never heard about it because people generally don't care about elders as much. Yet WHO and the NIH have poured a lot of money into a pneumococcal vaccine that turns out to be very effective in preventing infection. A vaccine that saves the elderly is hardly profitable. Your blanket statements about the scientific community do not hold up. We could match stories all day if you'd like but I think you're better off getting evidence relevant to the thread and why you think Bruce Lipton is correct.
 
The eradication of smallpox wasn't exactly motivated by profit, neither is the ongoing attempt to eliminate polio. Both are ventures made possible by science. Yes the companies manufacturing the vaccines made/make a profit but that is not the impetus behind the health campaigns. They same arguments can be made for space exploration, environmental campaigns, the lucrative fields of volcano and earthquake monitoring and many other aspects of science. Knowledge, not profit, is the main goal.
 
Belief in science is a "belief" in itself. Particularly today in a world where science has been completely politicized and is controlled by the same who control Congress. Sorry. I don't have a lot of faith in what is bandied about as "science" today.

"Belief in science is a "belief" in itself."

There is no "belief" in science.. everything in science can be proven through repeated experimentation. If you can duplicate the result, then its not a belief.

"Particularly today in a world where science has been completely politicized and is controlled by the same who control Congress"

State your sources and provide your evidence. Otherwise, this is just opinion and not based in fact. Thats another fundamental difference between 'belief' and 'science.' You're free to believe whatever you want to believe.. and there's nothing wrong with that at all. When you want to state something as fact (and this is the science part) you need to be able to provide your evidence, state the sources where you got your evidence, and prove that your experimentation is both accurate AND can be repeated.
 
If

if you look at my post further down I give you a PERFECT example of how "science" is completely influenced by money and power. The example I used is Ibogaine that is still illegal in the US but shows great promise in the treatment of addiction. As I said, my sister is the Chief Medical Officer for a major pharmaceutical company. Granted, she doesn't make the decision as to which substances her company studies, but she told me flat out they would not look at Ibogaine due to;
1. High cost of synthesis
2. Negative publicity

This brings to mind Fritjof Capra's "The turning point". There is a long chapter dedicated to medicine. Not only are herbal preperations weaker, providing more leeway for dosage disparity, but often times plants have antagonists that limit the effects. Pharma is out for a singular substance they find attractive and saleable. Mick will probably be offered coca tea at his hotel to ward off altitude sickness. He can buy the leaves and the alkaline rock in a farmers market to chew while hiking. Sure you can buy nose candy on the street. Crack, not so much. Americans seem to think everything is better when purified to the hilt. Nature buffers itself.
 
This brings to mind Fritjof Capra's "The turning point". There is a long chapter dedicated to medicine. Not only are herbal preperations weaker, providing more leeway for dosage disparity, but often times plants have antagonists that limit the effects. Pharma is out for a singular substance they find attractive and saleable. Mick will probably be offered coca tea at his hotel to ward off altitude sickness. He can buy the leaves and the alkaline rock in a farmers market to chew while hiking. Sure you can buy nose candy on the street. Crack, not so much. Americans seem to think everything is better when purified to the hilt. Nature buffers itself.
So are you advocating taking medication in uncertain dosages making the effects less predictable or are you speaking only about mind altering substances?
 
Last edited:
Homeopathy isn't really a hoax, as many of the practitioners believe in it. Although I think some of the commercial remedy manufacturers could qualify as being a "scam".

OK....unclear on the difference between a "hoax" and a "scam". Perhaps I'm being too simple, but they seem almost synonymous, in my experience.

ETA....a "scam" involves monetary recompense? Whereas a "hoax" might just be for the 'lulz'? Am I close?
 
OK....unclear on the difference between a "hoax" and a "scam". Perhaps I'm being too simple, but they seem almost synonymous, in my experience.

ETA....a "scam" involves monetary recompense? Whereas a "hoax" might just be for the 'lulz'? Am I close?

Yes. Although my point was more that since the originators and many current practitioners of homeopathy believe it works, then that's neither a hoax or a scam. It's just a mistake.
 
OK....unclear on the difference between a "hoax" and a "scam". Perhaps I'm being too simple, but they seem almost synonymous, in my experience.

ETA....a "scam" involves monetary recompense? Whereas a "hoax" might just be for the 'lulz'? Am I close?

AFAIK a scam is a deliberate attempt to take money knowing the "product" is false - it is a swindle or fraud.

Generally (IMO) hoax is any deliberate deception, but does not have to involve taking anything in return - so IMO all scams are hoaxes, but not all hoaxes are scams.

Someone who sincerely believes in what they are doing/saying/selling is not perpetrating either a hoax or a scam, because there is no intent to deceive.
 
Well perhaps in a few cases, but to say -

seems a little over the top.
It's not as if not eating a diet low in saturated fats immediately leads to fatal malnutrition or anything.
I won't give you the typical, "cite your sources, provide me evidence" stuff that I usually get when I make unsupported statements like the one you made, but I would ask you to consider the anecdotal evidence in the form of the overall health of Americans since the "low-fat" craze hit. Yes, I realize that we lead a more sedentary lifestyle and there may be other factors, but there is strong research that suggests that fish oil and other similar fats are essential to our health, particularly brain function. If you want, I can dig up the research, but it is easy to find with a quick search. The bottom line for me is that the work of Ancel Keys has been shown to be unequivocally flawed. From personal experience I can tell you that I lost 75 lbs. and rid myself of almost all medical issues by eating a diet of fresh vegetables, and proteins. Not LEAN proteins. I prefer the fattiest I can find, but I only eat grass fed beef. I use copious amounts of butter, olive oil, coconut oil, etc. I often take in more calories with these oils than I supposedly "burn", yet I still lost weight. I can't explain it. Just feel and look better than ever. Thousands of others have made the same discovery. It seems that processed foods, GMO foods, and foods grown with the typical pesticides and herbicides do damage our bodies. Again, I can only speak for myself as far as the particulars, but I don't think there is any doubt that science was wrong about the connection between saturated fats and heart disease.
 
There is no "belief" in science.. everything in science can be proven through repeated experimentation. If you can duplicate the result, then its not a belief.



State your sources and provide your evidence. Otherwise, this is just opinion and not based in fact. Thats another fundamental difference between 'belief' and 'science.' You're free to believe whatever you want to believe.. and there's nothing wrong with that at all. When you want to state something as fact (and this is the science part) you need to be able to provide your evidence, state the sources where you got your evidence, and prove that your experimentation is both accurate AND can be repeated.
Well, here is one source that claims that today, more science is funded by government. If you need evidence that our political system has been "corporatized", I would be happy to provide it, but surely you are aware of the ever increasing amount of "revolving door" politics in DC. A perfect example of the kind of "science" I am talking about involves Monsanto and certain products that were approved by the Dept of Agriculture in spite of dangers posed to the environment. Shall I elucidate?
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/who_pays
 
There is no "belief" in science.. everything in science can be proven through repeated experimentation. If you can duplicate the result, then its not a belief.
The problem as I see it as that much of what is promulgated as "science" has not been proven through repeated experimentation. According to your definition then, archaeology or plate tectonics would not fall in the realm of science? Not every scientific theory has been proven by experimentation. Many of our greatest discoveries on science came about as a result of "thought experiments". NO disrespect intended, but your statement that "in science.. everything in science can be proven through repeated experimentation" is simply inaccurate.
 
You want me to prove that eating a diet low in saturated fat does not directly lead to fatal malnutrition?
But you made the claim that it *does* contribute to early death, how about you prove it?
 
Science doesn't care about authority or consensus. Although consensus usually is based on the best available scientific evidence, science is based on what nature tells us. Yes, there is a lot that we don't know about human development, but we have mapped every singe step of development in simpler organisms like the roundworm, C. elegans. Human development has quite a bit of research around it as well. We know enough about development in other animals and humans to say that what Bruce Lipton touts in his books and talks is bunk. What about his statements remain valid, to you?

The basic premise that our bodies (and health) can by influenced by our thoughts, beliefs, and emotions. That, I believe is valid. I was never very good at biology or chemistry and the realm of genetics is a little over my head as far as understanding exactly how DNA and RNA along with proteins, etc. work to change cell structure and or bodily functions. You can "show me" that his science is flawed, yet I will hold onto the "belief" that it is possible to change our physiology by changing our emotional make up and through the power of prayer, conscious thought (or meditation). The placebo effect to me, is the greatest example of how important our "beliefs" are to our physical health.
 
I had a diet low in saturated fats on Saturday (I barely ate anything all day 'cos I was lazy) and on Sunday I was neither malnourished nor dead.

does that count??
 
I had a diet low in saturated fats on Saturday (I barely ate anything all day 'cos I was lazy) and on Sunday I was neither malnourished nor dead.

does that count??
I don''t know, but tonight I'm gonna eat some raw duck fat and the bloody hindquarters from an Ozarks pig followed up by three, that's right three, sticks of butter. Yum, yum, getcha some!
 
You want me to prove that eating a diet low in saturated fat does not directly lead to fatal malnutrition?
But you made the claim that it *does* contribute to early death, how about you prove it?
Pete,
The claim I made was there is little evidence to support the claim (held by most science and public for the last forty years) that a diet HIGH in saturated fats (the good kind mind you) contributes to heart disease. I never claimed that a diet that was low in saturated fats was harmful, although most nutritionists now agree that certain fats are essential for a complete and healthy diet. I think maybe you mis-read what I said.
 
At the risk of drawing a horde of criticism down on my head....the reality is that WE (Humans) are one species. But, because of DNA and RNA variations within any species' genome (things that we still do not yet fully understand), certain genetic markers WITHIN our species may (or may not) code for longer, or shorter lifespans, and other medical issues, based on what we choose for our diet.

This is what the science of genetics is striving to understand, right now!
 
So that's one more person versed in science and scientific principles telling you that you're wrong about something related to science. The logic you are advocating is people are telling me I'm wrong therefore I must be correct - Interesting approach to life. Do you use it in other areas besides science? Believe it or not sometimes when the overwhelming majority tells you that you are wrong, it's because you actually are wrong. As for Ibogaine, science has nothing to do with its legal status and its legal status goes a long way towards determining if a pharmaceutical company will spend capital studying the application and development of a drug. Pharmaceutical companies are not non-profit operations dedicated to pure research. How does the government not approving a drug you would like to made legal for use prove that the scientific process is flawed?

Edit: Corrected punctuation
Who and where is this "overwhelming majority" you're talking about? Certainly not on this site? And yes, Bill, it is hard being right most of the time. But its a burden I carry. :)
 

How do you figure archaeology and plate techtonics wouldnt fit into my definition of science? Because some guy with a white coat didnt do an experiment in a lab?


noun
noun: experiment; plural noun: experiments
ikˈsperəmənt/
  1. 1.
    a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.
    "laboratory experiments on guinea pigs"
    synonyms:test, investigation, trial, examination, observation; More
    • a course of action tentatively adopted without being sure of the eventual outcome.
      "the previous experiment in liberal democracy had ended in disaster"
verb
verb: experiment; 3rd person present: experiments; past tense: experimented; past participle: experimented; gerund or present participle: experimenting
ikˈsperəˌment/
  1. 1.
    perform a scientific procedure, especially in a laboratory, to determine something.
    "she experimented on chickens as well as mice"
    synonyms:conduct experiments, carry out trials/tests, conduct research; More
    • try out new concepts or ways of doing things.
      "the designers experimented with new ideas in lighting"
Content from External Source
Plate Techtonic experiments take place every day.. look at the San Andreas Fault.. its a MASSIVE experiment.. there are sensors planted all over the Fault that are used to measure the shift of the plates.. thats what an earthquake is.. the energy released when those plates move. We've learned this because you can actually measure the distance the earth moves when those plates slip. THAT is an experiment.. its gathering data and it can be repeated.. in fact it IS repeated all over the world every day.
 
Last edited:
Who and where is this "overwhelming majority" you're talking about? Certainly not on this site? And yes, Bill, it is hard being right most of the time. But its a burden I carry. :)
I was not referring specifically to this web site but to what appears to be your philosophy that if the majority believes in it, no matter how much proof the present to back it up, if it is not what you want to hear you must be the one that's correct.
 
Pete,
The claim I made was there is little evidence to support the claim (held by most science and public for the last forty years) that a diet HIGH in saturated fats (the good kind mind you) contributes to heart disease. I never claimed that a diet that was low in saturated fats was harmful, although most nutritionists now agree that certain fats are essential for a complete and healthy diet. I think maybe you mis-read what I said.
Okay then, can you clarify what you meant, how the supposed link of saturated fat to heart disease (which the tide of opinion seems to be turning against) has led to untold deaths? You brought it up in the context of the 'what's the harm' website as an example of a modern scientific mainstream belief that has led to harm, but it really seems a bit abstract to attribute harm directly to it.
Note also that if the tide of opinion is overturning the previous accepted scientific belief, it is through science itself that it is doing so.
(though I should note that any 'tide of opinion' can be directly opposed to and have nothing to do with actual science, but you know what I mean).
 
A perfect example of the kind of "science" I am talking about involves Monsanto and certain products that were approved by the Dept of Agriculture in spite of dangers posed to the environment. Shall I elucidate?

By all means.. elucidate on the frangible intricacies... throwing out words to try to make yourself sound smart, dont really do anything, just speak plainly... in a different thread

If you need evidence that our political system has been "corporatized", I would be happy to provide it,

Please do. In a different thread.

but surely you are aware of the ever increasing amount of "revolving door" politics in DC.

Politics have always been a revolving door, this isnt anything new and doesnt really have anything to do with what we're dicussing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top