What American cars do you like? [Archive] - Page 3

Matra et Alpine

02-12-2005, 05:05 AM

How did I "invalidate" my entire argument? Are you trying to say that those news outlets (c"B.S.", ABC, NBC, CNN, etc.) do not show any bias?
Because YOU CHOSE to only watch one and be subject to ITS bias and not try to colelct a NON-biased view by absorbing alternate POVs.
Here is one example... during the 2004 Iraqi invasion, there were words from those left-leaning media outlets such as... "a disaster" and "reckless." This is a quote from a Colonel in the fighting area:
From a Lt. Col. from the 3rd Infantry Division:
"The plan is going exaclty as scripted. The news reports are full of c---. We have control of central Iraq and our casualties are light. Just today we destroyed 2 divisions and six other Iraqi divisions have decided not to fight. The news never reports this."
Well the "proof" came later - "control of Central Iraq" was a slitght over-estimate :(
Also, did you not play sports in HS ? Your coach would ALWAYS tell you that you coudl recover a win and woudl belittle the opposition. It's called motivating your team. Military MUST do that all the time !!
The link crisis posted is hardly a reliable source. I mean, you can look through the whole internet and find sites that claim that Fox is biased.

and yet you never ask WHY ?
:)
It is well-known that those liberal news stations I mentioned are biased:
http://www.geocities.com/home60515/7.html
Wait, so crisi can't claim FOX bias because the internet "is hardly a reliable source" and THEN you cite the internet to show that it is "well known" that liberal stations are biased.
I sometimes wonder if you engage the left and right side of your brain when typing on UCP :)
BTW, did you know that Fox News hosted (and funded) the Democrat presidental Debate last year?
Isn't that a bit like the Superbowl. That everyone gets a shot at hosting it ??
If it is then it's a pretty pointless comment.

To try to keep on ropic -- blitz, do you mean the new Ford GT or the original GT40 ? What Mark ?? Tehy're all quite a bit different from each other

spi-ti-tout

02-12-2005, 08:13 AM

Beyond the Corvette and the Mustang ( we gotta add the Viper ) what other modern cars are rated by American owners as good sports cars ??
I know this is a little 'off-topic' but.....the Charger RT?

Fleet 500

02-12-2005, 02:04 PM

Because YOU CHOSE to only watch one and be subject to ITS bias and not try to colelct a NON-biased view by absorbing alternate POVs.

Well the "proof" came later - "control of Central Iraq" was a slitght over-estimate :(
Also, did you not play sports in HS ? Your coach would ALWAYS tell you that you coudl recover a win and woudl belittle the opposition. It's called motivating your team. Military MUST do that all the time !!

Wait, so crisi can't claim FOX bias because the internet "is hardly a reliable source" and THEN you cite the internet to show that it is "well known" that liberal stations are biased.
I sometimes wonder if you engage the left and right side of your brain when typing on UCP :)

Isn't that a bit like the Superbowl. That everyone gets a shot at hosting it ??
If it is then it's a pretty pointless comment.

Why are you assuming that I only watch one? I don't; I watch other stations.

The truth was Baghdad was overrun and fell in a very short period of time considering it was a land invasion. It was the fastest land-type invasion in recent history. Yeah, a coach may have said what you posted- but what the general said really did happen. There were few casualties considering the fact that it was a land invasion. Some were predicting 10,000 U.S. deaths and it was nowhere near that.

As for the websites, the link I posted had legitimate sources (U.S. News & World Report, Chicago Sun-Times, etc), with sources listed at the bottom. And even a quote from Dan Rather admitting that American journalism is straying from its standards of fairness, accuracy and integrity.
Speaking of brains, use yours--- why do some people complain when there are dozens of liberal news outlets and only ONE non-liberal one? Do you think they should ALL lean to the left? Now, that would be using one side of ones' brain!

If Fox was really an extremist, right-wing news station (which they're not) I doubt they would have hosted/funded a Democrat presidential debate.

Egg Nog

02-12-2005, 02:12 PM

If Fox was really an extremist, right-wing news station (which they're not) I doubt they would have hosted/funded a Democrat presidential debate.

You should really watch "Outfoxed" - it's a pretty well-done (and completely factual, we're not talking Michael Moore here) decomentary that goes over this entire topic, and Rupert Murdoch's media empire in general. Fox most certainly is the most biased, right-wing news source in the USA, there are no two ways about it. My buddy's professer did a lot of his own personal research on the topic too, coming to essentially the same conclusions that they reach in the film. Please see the film, it gets a lot of information out.

Fleet 500

02-12-2005, 02:12 PM

wats going on fleet, every1 tried to move on to the topic of this thread, that is american cars that we like, and u have to reply with all this political bullcrap, seriously i dont think any1 cares anymore so can we get back on topic?

You should be asking Matra that. Go back to page 18; his 2-5-05, 4:49 PM post.
Then say to Matra, "what's going on Matra..."

Why would you direct your post to someone who is just replying (me) rather than the one who started the whole issue?

Fleet 500

02-12-2005, 02:17 PM

You should really watch "Outfoxed" - it's a pretty well-done (and completely factual, we're not talking Michael Moore here) decomentary that goes over this entire topic, and Rupert Murdoch's media empire in general. Fox most certainly is the most biased, right-wing news source in the USA, there are no two ways about it. My buddy's professer did a lot of his own personal research on the topic too, coming to essentially the same conclusions that they reach in the film. Please see the film, it gets a lot of information out.
I did. And I have found flaws (but nowhere near as bad as Michael Moron). This whole thing boils down to the fact that some people resent having one lone non-liberal news station out there. They also resent the fact that Fox (which began as recent as 1996 compared to CNN which began in the early '80s) started out well behind CNN in viewership, caught up and now is well ahed of Fox (and all the others) for viewership. I think it's because people finally got tired of the liberal spin on those mainstream networks and the obvious jabs at conservatism.

Matra et Alpine

02-12-2005, 02:32 PM

Why are you assuming that I only watch one? I don't; I watch other stations.
Please read you response in post #497.
That seems at ods and now smells a little of back-tracking :(
The truth was Baghdad was overrun and fell in a very short period of time considering it was a land invasion. It was the fastest land-type invasion in recent history. Yeah, a coach may have said what you posted- but what the general said really did happen.
And you know HOW ?
Possibly because FOX weren't reporting all the battles, engagements and attacks ?
hell the US government even started shamefully trying to return the bodies fo those who hadgiven up their lives under darkness and avoiding publicity. All the "bad" thngs they trie with Vietnam ! Back then the press were "free" and it was at least NOT allowed to get away with it !!!

There were few casualties considering the fact that it was a land invasion. Some were predicting 10,000 U.S. deaths and it was nowhere near that.
That woudl ahve been FOX predicting it was it ?
:)
"Few casualties" ? hmm, and yet since then EVERYONE has said they hadnt' expected as much resistance. I smell BS. Sorry if it's not yours, but please dont' parcel FOX's BS and deliver it here on UCP without a "health warning" :)
As for the websites, the link I posted had legitimate sources (U.S. News & World Report, Chicago Sun-Times, etc), with sources listed at the bottom. And even a quote from Dan Rather admitting that American journalism is straying from its standards of fairness, accuracy and integrity.
And yet you dont' think he's meaning FOX.
I love your double-handedness. Most folsk dont' have the courage to be so blunt about it !!
Speaking of brains, use yours--- why do some people complain when there are dozens of liberal news outlets and only ONE non-liberal one? Do you think they should ALL lean to the left? Now, that would be using one side of ones' brain!
See, Fleet, the mistake you are making AGAIN is assuming WE believe all the astations the way you believe in FOX. Please go back and read what I've been saying and suggesting. MOST of us try to draw information from wide sources to enable us to come to our own conclusion. By their own admission, American news anchorpeople say there JOB is to do that for the viewesr. Well sadly that is biased by virtue of the process.
If you woudl stop switching hands in your mental masturbation you'd spot it !!
If Fox was really an extremist, right-wing news station (which they're not) I doubt they would have hosted/funded a Democrat presidential debate.
ha-ha-ha. Are you so stupid and biased to forget that advertising revenue and prestige means somethign to a comeercial station ?
AND you're ignoring all the examples cited showing FOX bias. No station woudl chose to be BLATANT or it woudl be marginalised. You really should read about the use of the media and propganda to appease and control a population !!

Matra et Alpine

02-12-2005, 02:34 PM

You should be asking Matra that. Go back to page 18; his 2-5-05, 4:49 PM post.
Then say to Matra, "what's going on Matra..."

Why would you direct your post to someone who is just replying (me) rather than the one who started the whole issue?

BECAUSE YOU PILLOCK, I HAVE 3 TIMES TRTIED TO RETURN TO THE POINT,

I'm afraid your posts just prove you dont' actually read what s written :)

AOUCPINROTFLTAO !!!!!!

And in your other post, you really are confused by the scare-mongering in the US over "liberal". AND you've forgotten that everyone is saying they use multiple sources to seek balance. You dont'. NOBODY else is saying one station is 'truth' - only you. The problem is you can't justify the decision to watch a station that presents one view and who's owner is known worldwise for applying editorial control to his TV station's news. SKY in the UK is laughed at as much as FOX in America :)

PS: What Chargers ? What years ??? For us "furriners" you guys need to give us more info so we can do google and know which one you mean :)

Egg Nog

02-12-2005, 02:45 PM

I did. And I have found flaws (but nowhere near as bad as Michael Moron). This whole thing boils down to the fact that some people resent having one lone non-liberal news station out there. They also resent the fact that Fox (which began as recent as 1996 compared to CNN which began in the early '80s) started out well behind CNN in viewership, caught up and now is well ahed of Fox (and all the others) for viewership. I think it's because people finally got tired of the liberal spin on those mainstream networks and the obvious jabs at conservatism.

The only network that has even minor "liberal spin" is CBS, and none are even remotely close to the level of bias in the blind conservatism on Fox. Everything on essentially the entire network is closely studied and programmed to avoid covering Repeblican faults and to point out every single issue (and focus coverage) on anything they think is left-of-centre. Any network that calls John Kerry a "far-left wacko" has got something seriously wrong going on (I don't like JK at all, for reference, it's just that he isn't "far-left".

The thing about fox is, when you look at how it is run (and you don't even need to look very deeply), you notice how corrupt and how vehemently biased it is. In another documentary (not Outfoxed), it explains how shows have been cut and people have been fired because they wanted to report scientific findings that thoroughly prove the corruption of a certain company. This was because the company was a large advertiser on Fox and a major supporter of the Republican party. This is not just one incident, it has happened many times.

Fox is so ridiculously biased that you cannot even practically debate whether it is or not.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-12-2005, 04:18 PM

Fleet 500

02-12-2005, 08:04 PM

The only network that has even minor "liberal spin" is CBS, and none are even remotely close to the level of bias in the blind conservatism on Fox. Everything on essentially the entire network is closely studied and programmed to avoid covering Repeblican faults and to point out every single issue (and focus coverage) on anything they think is left-of-centre. Any network that calls John Kerry a "far-left wacko" has got something seriously wrong going on (I don't like JK at all, for reference, it's just that he isn't "far-left".

The thing about fox is, when you look at how it is run (and you don't even need to look very deeply), you notice how corrupt and how vehemently biased it is. In another documentary (not Outfoxed), it explains how shows have been cut and people have been fired because they wanted to report scientific findings that thoroughly prove the corruption of a certain company. This was because the company was a large advertiser on Fox and a major supporter of the Republican party. This is not just one incident, it has happened many times.

Fox is so ridiculously biased that you cannot even practically debate whether it is or not.
"Minor" spin? Lol. That's the funniest thing I've heard in the last 5 years! Obvious spin is more accurate. And don't forget the others like NBC, ABC, BBC, MSNBC, CNBC.

No one has posted a reliable link with valid, documented info showing that Fox "twists" the news they report. There may have been examples posted which shows Fox is on the conservative side, but so what? The other liberal stations have leaned to the left for years and you same people don't seem concerned about that- only the right-leaning stations. I think you (and others) call a station like Fox "biased" when they show both sides.

Fleet 500

02-12-2005, 08:07 PM

I believe it was the Corporation in which i saw some journalists being chastised and eventually fired due to the fact they reported some kind of Defect in a Milk-Producing needle that was given to cows, reported by the FDA as possibly harmful.

It's obvious we're talking to a brick wall, unless their is another argument that Fleet can come up with regarding this issue NOT relating to a quote or info from Fox, then we need to leave this one well alone, no one is getting anywhere.
A link, please?

Answer me this- do you think there should be no media outlets that don't lean left? Should there only be liberal-leaning news outlets or should there be others for a balance? Since Fox news is destroying CNN (and even has higher ratings than non-cable news channels), could it be that people are tired of left-leaning news outlets? I think so.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-12-2005, 08:10 PM

Valid links have been posted throughout this discussion, from such primary sources as ex-fox news Journalists, proving the Manipulation of stories.

either you have a short memory, or your being delibrate.

Both sides of what, the Conservative opinion?

Have you shown evidence of CBS, BBC Et al being Left? other than your opinion (something which as a Fox News watcher must be fact to you) you haven't really got a leg to stand on.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-12-2005, 08:13 PM

A link, please?

Answer me this- do you think there should be no media outlets that don't lean left? Should there only be liberal-leaning news outlets or should there be others for a balance? Since Fox news is destroying CNN (and even has higher ratings than non-cable news channels), could it be that people are tired of left-leaning news outlets? I think so.

Could it be possible that you can't get tired of real news, what you can tune in for is opinion subsituted for fact.

And where is your evidence of this Left-Leaning your so keen to put out?

THE PRICE OF WHISTLEBLOWING
It turns out that standing for the public good is an expensive proposition. Ask Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, two investigative reporters fired by Fox News after they refused to water down a story on rBGH, a synthetic hormone widely used in the United States (but banned in Europe and Canada) to rev up cows’ metabolism and boost their milk production. Because of the increased production, the cows suffer from mastitis, a painful infection of the udders. Antibiotics must then be injected, which find their way into the milk, and ultimately reduce people’s resistance to disease.

Fox demanded that they rewrite the story, and ultimately fired Akre and Wilson. Akre and Wilson subsequently sued Fox under Florida’s whistle-blower statute. They proved to a jury that the version of the story Fox would have had them put on the air was false, distorted or slanted. Akre was awarded $425,000. Then Fox appealed, the verdict was overturned on a technicality, and Akre lost her award. [For more information on the case see www.foxbghsuit.com]

Taken from http://www.thecorporation.tv/about/

Blitz_

02-12-2005, 08:36 PM

Ok ok, dont like the tv news u watch and ur thinking what do i do!! left or right wing extremists, hmmm heres a good idea, turn of your tv or watch naked news

IBrake4Rainbows

02-12-2005, 08:38 PM

...But in order to watch the Naked News, your TV Must be on.

And even then the stories are 2 weeks out of date.

But who really cares? :P

Egg Nog

02-12-2005, 09:32 PM

"Minor" spin? Lol. That's the funniest thing I've heard in the last 5 years! Obvious spin is more accurate. And don't forget the others like NBC, ABC, BBC, MSNBC, CNBC.

No one has posted a reliable link with valid, documented info showing that Fox "twists" the news they report. There may have been examples posted which shows Fox is on the conservative side, but so what? The other liberal stations have leaned to the left for years and you same people don't seem concerned about that- only the right-leaning stations. I think you (and others) call a station like Fox "biased" when they show both sides.

If you want valid, documented info, why don't you watch Outfoxed again? It's got plenty. I have yet to see any proof that CBS has leaned very far to the left at all (and that's American Left, which is centrist). the only issue I've heard of with CBS was in a single news report, where they said something about Bush which turned out to be false. A single mishap is bad, of course, but nothing too huge to get worked up about. If Fox only made one mistake, people wouldn't be on it's case so much.

Other than CBS, i haven't seen any networks which would be considered relatively left-wing. They mostly seem to be fairly in-the-middle, but I see how someone who thinks Fox really is "fair and balanced" could interpret what other networks show as "left-wing".

The issue that IB4R and I were talking about involved Monsanto Inc. - If you want the full details, you'll have to watch "The Corporation". Basically, three (I think) Fox employees were going to do a show that brought truth to various unexplored issues. They found various problems with Monsanto involving deceit and health risks (to do with milk). Since Monsanto is a huge republican supporter (hell, they even came up with Agent Orange for the Republicans back in the 70s), Fox wanted to cancel the episode. They tried to pay off the employees' contract and dismiss them, but they said no. Eventually, Fox found a way to air the episode completely watered-down, devoid of facts, and without finger-pointing at Monsanto.

There are so many issues I don't know where to start.

I will give you some fully factual web pages to read through. I now expect you to dismiss/not read any/all of them, and we can continue this mindless banter.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/steinreich8.html
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA499014.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/30/fox_news/index_np.html
http://www.neilturner.me.uk/2004/Jun/16/fox_news_lies_about_lying.html
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/steinreich1.html
http://www.fair.org/activism/white-house-vandalism.html
http://www.independent-media.tv/gtheme.cfm?ftheme_id=88
http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-1/447/447_02_MediaLies.shtml
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?p=21309#post21309
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20050211.shtml
http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2004/05/an_example_of_f.html
http://www.pbase.com/automat42/image/37624867

Fleet 500

02-12-2005, 11:02 PM

Again, many of those links are questionable. For instance, "fair.org" is anything but.

If you haven't seen any other networks which you consider relatively left-wing, then it's obvious you haven't been watching them. ABC is well-known as a liberal station. Ditto NBC, CNN, BBC, etc.

Notice that Fox hasn't been caught in a scandal like CBS was, which was huge. There's proof right there that the liberal media does exist. Also, just before the '92 elections, news reporters and journalist were surveyed- 89% said they voted for Clinton.

Wanted to cancel an episode is not "twisting" new that is reported. Or putting a "biased" slant on the news.

Posting a bunch of liberal websites does not help your case!

Egg Nog

02-12-2005, 11:04 PM

Posting a bunch of liberal websites does not help your case!

As I said before.... now that you've denounced/ignored the sites, we can get back to meaningless banter. Who could've called that?

I suppose you want me to find hardcore right-wing sources to prove Fox is completely biased? I don't even know why I bother with you sometimes.

Fleet 500

02-12-2005, 11:05 PM

Valid links have been posted throughout this discussion, from such primary sources as ex-fox news Journalists, proving the Manipulation of stories.

Both sides of what, the Conservative opinion?

Have you shown evidence of CBS, BBC Et al being Left? other than your opinion (something which as a Fox News watcher must be fact to you) you haven't really got a leg to stand on.
Nope, no valid links showing that Fox "twists" or "distorts" news before they report on it on the air.

No, both sides, liberal and conservative. They allow the conservative side to be expressed, not just the liberal side which many networks have been doing for years.

If you've never seen any evidence indicating that the BBC, CBS, etc are left then you either don't tune in to those stations much or are very young and did not watch them throughout the '90s, '80s and '70s.

Fleet 500

02-12-2005, 11:09 PM

As I said before.... now that you've denounced/ignored the sites, we can get back to meaningless banter. Who could've called that?

I suppose you want me to find hardcore right-wing sources to prove Fox is completely biased? I don't even know why I bother with you sometimes.
Great, you want me to believe what liberal websites say about Fox News! Really fair.

No, find an independant site- not an obviously liberal one.

So, where is a news story that Fox deliberately distorted. You are forgetting, if that did happen, the other news stations (which are jealous of Fox's success) would be all over it. It would be like the Dan Rather scandal. Why haven't we seen that? How come no big scandals about Fox News "changing" a story hasn't been aired. Those other stations would have been all over it! CNN would just love to chip away at Fox's ratings!

IBrake4Rainbows

02-12-2005, 11:34 PM

Nope, no valid links showing that Fox "twists" or "distorts" news before they report on it on the air.

No, both sides, liberal and conservative. They allow the conservative side to be expressed, not just the liberal side which many networks have been doing for years.

If you've never seen any evidence indicating that the BBC, CBS, etc are left then you either don't tune in to those stations much or are very young and did not watch them throughout the '90s, '80s and '70s.

....No valid links, other than the first hand accounts of previous employees, one's used by Crisis as points of interest come to mind.

The conservative side has always been represented, it's just they feel as though they have not been given a fair go. Give them their own channel, and hey presto, no one else is allowed to even go near it!

I have been watching the BBC since 1994, when i first got cable television. I am 16, so I am considered young, but i know more about the history of the BBC and other channels than you'd think. the BBC is a state run organisation, as in the British Government, they are called into question every single day by a merciless british tabloid and government demanding to hear both sides of every story, methnks you'll find if you ask any person who they think is the more trusted name in news, BBC will pop up more times than Fox.

Your blatant denial of any facts that crisis, Egg Nog or myself have given you proves that you cannot argue a point. If things don't change and you can't accept another, different point of view to your own, then i'm afraid this will be my last post in this thread, i'll leave the Dillusional alone.

Fleet 500

02-12-2005, 11:52 PM

....
The conservative side has always been represented, it's just they feel as though they have not been given a fair go. Give them their own channel, and hey presto, no one else is allowed to even go near it.

I have been watching the BBC since 1994, when i first got cable television. I am 16, so I am considered young, but i know more about the history of the BBC and other channels than you'd think. the BBC is a state run organisation, as in the British Government, they are called into question every single day by a merciless british tabloid and government demanding to hear both sides of every story, methnks you'll find if you ask any person who they think is the more trusted name in news, BBC will pop up more times than Fox.

Strange that there are so many non-conservatives on Fox News!

Actually, the BBC, like the New York Times, were a respectable news source. But that has changed. For instance, trust in the BBC has fallen from 92% just before the 1992 Gulf War to 59% currently. 72% of Americans trust Fox News.

The BBC was extremely biased in its presentation of the fighting Iraq received from the U.S. in the 2003 war.
I remember one BBC correspondent who chastised the BBC for the biased reporting that was occuring.
The BBC also claimed that the U.S. faked the rescue of Private Lynch!
Like I said, a respectable news source once, not now.

http://www.bbcwatch.org
http://www.bbcbias.org
http://www.labour-watch.com/bbcbias.htm
http://www.netreach.net~zoa/bbc/

IBrake4Rainbows

02-13-2005, 12:39 AM

I also remember a BBC correspondant who was remarkably pro-american after his convoy came under attack from rebel fighters, his interpreter was killed and it made for a very moving piece of journalism.

I have never even considered that the BBC was biased in it's coverage, because it chases issues does not make it a bad news source.

And they also managed to prove their research on Private Lynch (To certain degrees).

It's not as if the BBC is beyond reproach, they make mistakes, but they don't delibrately go out there to distort the truth, I was watching it today, they were covering the 60th Anniversary of the Dresden Firestorm bombings by the allies, while Fox had the Beltway Boys showing more meaningless graphics about how 47% of americans (of 1000 surveyed, i've done more in a school project.) believed they would be worse off under these agreements. They took 4 hours to even mention the Tsunami in Asia, probably because GWB had nothing to do with it, all other reputable news stations were all over it like a rash. It says a lot about their journalistic integrity when they continue with scheduled programming, rather than covering the news, as it breaks.

crisis

02-13-2005, 02:52 AM

How did I "invalidate" my entire argument? Are you trying to say that those news outlets (c"B.S.", ABC, NBC, CNN, etc.) do not show any bias?
no he is not. How can you repeatedly misinterpet what people say? His point is not about thwether they are or are not biased. His point is you cant possibly know because by your own admission you dont watch them. He wasnt the only one to make that observation either. How can we speel it uot any clearer? :confused:

The link crisis posted is hardly a reliable source. I mean, you can look through the whole internet and find sites that claim that Fox is biased.
The link is to the transcript of a documentary that went to air on our Government owned TV station. You can argue that any source is not reliable, especially when you dont like the message, but it contained interviews and quotes with ex employees, and not just one or two. It also contained commentary from media experts. I will admit (due to my unerring scepticism) that any documentary has an agenda. But you must also accept that interviews with ex staff (however dissafected) must have some weight.

It is well-known that those liberal news stations I mentioned are biased:
http://www.geocities.com/home60515/7.html

And it is uncontested. It is, as stated repeatedly, a matter of how overt.

crisis

02-13-2005, 02:58 AM

Please see the film, it gets a lot of information out.
Unfortunately I can already hear the critique. ;)

crisis

02-13-2005, 03:02 AM

Fox is so ridiculously biased that you cannot even practically debate whether it is or not.
I dont know if it was supposed to be, but that is funny. :D

crisis

02-13-2005, 03:06 AM

No one has posted a reliable link with valid, documented info showing that Fox "twists" the news they report. There may have been examples posted which shows Fox is on the conservative side, but so what?
So my relentless posts of quotes are not valid? Why? And are not reliable? Why? They undoubtably showed how FOX twists and manipulates stories so that cant be denied.

crisis

02-13-2005, 03:09 AM

A link, please?

What is the point? If you dont like the sound of it you will say it is not valid.

Matra et Alpine

02-13-2005, 05:34 AM

Answer me this- do you think there should be no media outlets that don't lean left? Should there only be liberal-leaning news outlets or should there be others for a balance? Since Fox news is destroying CNN (and even has higher ratings than non-cable news channels), could it be that people are tired of left-leaning news outlets? I think so.
Fleet you're still not seeing that EVERYOEN else view multiple channels to ensure they can make their OWN mind up about vias.
ONLY YOU are trying to defend ONE channel !!!!

Be honest, American news viewers cannot be botherd seeing anything outside their own town and state. Teh majoruty of American viewrs don;t really care whether their are industries closign down in Britain or France or etc etc. So you can't use the POPULAROTY of a station as it's measure of balance. All that says is they are pandering to the "lowest common denominator" :(

Matra et Alpine

02-13-2005, 06:00 AM

No, find an independant site- not an obviously liberal one.
OK, follow this one Fleet.
OFCOM is the UK body which monitors our TV and Radio.
it is NOT a government body and has been criticsed by ALL sides in some of it's decisions ( usually a good indicator of balanced :) )

So read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3805691.stm

And given you've clearly not read OTHER links others have provided, I'll clip a small part for you ....

The network also said searching for the phrase "BBC anti-American" into the Google internet search engine resulted in 47,200 hits.

They added that the BBC "continually bashed" American policy.

And although Fox accepted Gilligan had not actually used the phrase attributed to him, it maintained Gibson had paraphrased the BBC reporter.

So FOX us a google search engine as a reliabel source do they ? Wow :) Espcially given your dissing of the internet earlier :)

So FOX "accepted" that it hand't been said but then trued toi wriggle by saying it "paraphrased" - a new word for lying then :)

So, where is a news story that Fox deliberately distorted. You are forgetting, if that did happen,
Looks to be that one :)
You know that only took 30 seconds to find !!
AND it's from OFCOM who are an independant body setup to monitor for any bias in the UK !!
the other news stations (which are jealous of Fox's success) would be all over it. It would be like the Dan Rather scandal. Why haven't we seen that? How come no big scandals about Fox News "changing" a story hasn't been aired. Those other stations would have been all over it! CNN would just love to chip away at Fox's ratings!
And you knwo they didnt' do that because in all those hours you don't watch them you know they didnt' say anything :)

Love it :)

OH and the final statement from the OFCOM INDEPENDANT REVIEW body ??
See www.ofcom.org.uk but again I'll quote it for you , Fleet :)
Fox News was therefore in breach of Sections 2.1 (respect for truth), 2.7 (opportunity to take part), and 3.5(b) (personal view programmes - opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence) of the Programme Code.

Proof of bias, can we end this BS now and go back to American cars and away from American idiots ??

Fleet 500

02-13-2005, 04:04 PM

This is a link to the transcript of Outfoxed, a documentary on FOX complete with comments from ex employees, media commentators and excerpts from FOX broadcasts.
http://www.outfoxed.org/docs/outfoxed_transcript.pdf

I will post this again for the third time.

I posted this. I am loath to clog up the forum with it so read it this time.

Anonymous 2 Former FOX News Reporter

Pehaps next time you should post accurate documentaries?

A few things I bet you did know about that "movie."

About the Fox employees mentioned... they were low-level employees. Some left due to incompetence and none expressed concern about editorial policies while employees.
Fox News noted many inaccuracies in the film, such as the fact that four of the employees worked for Fox but not Fox News.

Parts of the movie are distorted and actually incorrect.
Fox News claimed an illegal copyright infringement. Actions of moveon.org in cooperation with the New York Times including cutting a deal not to give Fox News Channel adequate time to react is unprecedented.

Info can be found here:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000575114

Matra et Alpine

02-13-2005, 04:17 PM

including cutting a deal not to give Fox News Channel adequate time to react is unprecedented.
Funny, according to the OFCOM report it is ESACTLY that they got harangued for.
Never gave the BBC air time to respond to the allegations.
Can't really play a two-handed game can they ?

IBrake4Rainbows

02-13-2005, 05:39 PM

Do you Remember Supersize me?

McDonalds claimed they did not have time to respond either, despite the fact they knew full well their products were terrible.

Fox is the McDonalds of the Journalism world, it might taste like a true story, but you can't believe everything that you eat, or hear, for that matter.

And because they were low level employees does that make their claims any worse? Janitors have been able to take companies down when they go through the rubbish to find memos and the like.

How can you cut a deal not to give a company time to respond to criticism?

I seriously hope you do not believe everything that you are writing, Fleet, because if so there is some serious brainwashing going on.

crisis

02-13-2005, 09:25 PM

Pehaps next time you should post accurate documentaries?

A few things I bet you did know about that "movie."

About the Fox employees mentioned... they were low-level employees. Some left due to incompetence and none expressed concern about editorial policies while employees.]

Fox News noted many inaccuracies in the film, such as the fact that four of the employees worked for Fox but not Fox News.

"Fox News described Soros as "a left-wing billionaire currency speculator who funds many liberal efforts."
Sounds like something they might say. :)

The Fox statement also attempted a takedown of several ex-Fox employees, labeled by the filmmakers as "whistleblowers," who appeared in the film (and at the press conference). Fox referred to them as "low level" employees, adding that some left due to incompetence, "and none expressed concern about editorial policy while employees."
Of course. low level incompetent troublemakers :D
Heres a low level news producer, Frank O’Donnell Former Fox News Producer,
Washington, they must have all different levels of them.
A low level reporter, David Burnett, Former Fox News Reporter, Washington D.C.
Another low level producer,Diana Winthrop Former Fox News Producer.
Oh look, they have low level news anchors, Jon Du Pre Former Fox News Anchor–West Coast Bureau.
The list gos on,CLARA FRENK, Former Fox News Producer, havent seen any tea ladies yet.

And they were professional enough to get all personal too.
"Fox referred to one the employee's "personnel file," revealing that "he was considered to be a weak field correspondent and could not do live shots."

These people are industry watchdogs, not disgruntled incompetent ex employees.

David Brock President/CEO of Media Matters for America
Bob McChesney Founder of Free Press/Author of “The Problem of the Media”

Parts of the movie are distorted and actually incorrect.
Fox News claimed an illegal copyright infringement. Actions of moveon.org in cooperation with the New York Times including cutting a deal not to give Fox News Channel adequate time to react is unprecedented.

Info can be found here:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000575114
Fox claims illegal copyright infringement and not getting adequate time to respond. They go on to claim the ex employees are low level troublemakers with family problems. But they DONT address any points in a way that proves they are not true. Huff and puff. That link merely shows FOX was p1ssed. Well go figure. And you have the front to tell me to post accuracy. The only people who claim it is innacurate are FOX. Michael Jackson rekons hes innocent too.

Fleet 500

02-13-2005, 11:14 PM

"Fox News described Soros as "a left-wing billionaire currency speculator who funds many liberal efforts."
Sounds like something they might say. :)

Fox claims illegal copyright infringement and not getting adequate time to respond. They go on to claim the ex employees are low level troublemakers with family problems. But they DONT address any points in a way that proves they are not true. Huff and puff. That link merely shows FOX was p1ssed.
And Fox is exactly right about Soros... he IS a left-wing billionaire who funds many liberal efforts. Do you doubt that? Why are you so anti-Fox but not anti-CBS or BBC which, from info I've read, is much more left-wing than Fox is right-wing. As I said, though, I guess Fox will just have to settle for being the cable news network with the highest ratings (and in some polls, the most believable news network).

You can't blame Fox for being angered. What if you owned a successful cable news channel and a film was made about it filled with inaccuracies?

IBrake4Rainbows

02-13-2005, 11:22 PM

I'd be more pissed off about looking inside my organisation to see what provoked such an attack.

So if Fox says it, it's true, but if another group, against Fox says something, it's liberal, or left-wing, or just plain wrong?

I would lay money on a wager that the news channels Sky, CBS, BBC, CNN et al would each play more true and fairer stories each day than Fox plays in a week. the differance between those news channels and Fox is that they don't report opinion as fact.

i would like to see those newspolls (Paid for by Fox, no doubt) proving their percieved truth-rating.

and if Fox prefers higher ratings to actually telling the story, someone up top has their wires crossed.

Fleet 500

02-13-2005, 11:22 PM

Fox is the McDonalds of the Journalism world, it might taste like a true story, but you can't believe everything that you eat, or hear, for that matter.

I seriously hope you do not believe everything that you are writing, Fleet, because if so there is some serious brainwashing going on.
Tell me your opinion... is it possible for a non-liberal, right-leaning news station to exist?

Speaking of "brainwashing," that definitely applies to the many people who had no choice but watch all of those left-leaning news channels before Fox began. I'm talking about news channels who did not report the economy was beginning to grow just before the Nov. '92 election. It was only after Bush Sr. lost it was aired that the economy had been growing by 1 or 2% since around Sept. of that year. So, because of media bias, people (those brainwashed by the liberal media) voted believing that the economy had not yet recovered when it already was starting to.
Like I've said before, thank God there is at least one non-liberal news station (Fox) and you people can have your McDonald's-type C"B.S.", ABC, NBC, and the others.

Fleet 500

02-13-2005, 11:29 PM

So if Fox says it, it's true, but if another group, against Fox says something, it's liberal, or left-wing, or just plain wrong?

I would lay money on a wager that the news channels Sky, CBS, BBC, CNN et al would each play more true and fairer stories each day than Fox plays in a week. the differance between those news channels and Fox is that they don't report opinion as fact.

and if Fox prefers higher ratings to actually telling the story, someone up top has their wires crossed.
No, but if the other group is claiming things that are inaccurate, then they are wrong.

You would lose that bet. Besides the recent "Rathergate" revealation, don't forget that back in 1992 89% of news reporters (from those stations and others) said they were liberal. Now, that many percentage of liberals, you can't tell me that they are more "true" and "fair" than Fox. Let's face it- practically every news reporter is at least somewhat biased and has opinions. When the vast majority in the TV media are liberals, it's going to affect their reporting. Again, that's why Fox News (who has both conservative and liberal reporters) really are more balanced. Unless you consider an 89% figure to be "balanced!"

They prefer both high rating and accuracy. Don't forget, if Fox was caught in some big scandal (like CBS/Dan Rather), they would lose many viewers. And they, of course, wouldn't want that to happen. Lost ratings=lost earnings.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-13-2005, 11:29 PM

If CBS, BBC, CNN et al are McDonalds, all that BS about their products being good for you must be true!

I think there is a place for a right-leaning network (Although Fox's own catchline is "Fair and Balanced, meaning it's false advertising if their leaning any particular way), but not one that actually thinks nothing of changing, editing or manipulating a story in order to "be the most watched Cable news channel". If it were a ratings war (which it shouldn't be, News should be informative, not entertaining) then thw whole worlds stuffed because people would sensationalise everything MORE than they already do.

I'm angry at FOX, not the right.

And for all you know those figures could only have been released after he was ousted.

[Quote]
Originally Posted by Fleet 500
No, but if the other group is claiming things that are inaccurate, then they are wrong.

You would lose that bet. Besides the recent "Rathergate" revealation, don't forget that back in 1992 89% of news reporters (from those stations and others) said they were liberal. Now, that many percentage of liberals, you can't tell me that they are more "true" and "fair" than Fox. Let's face it- practically every news reporter is at least somewhat biased and has opinions. When the vast majority in the TV media are liberals, it's going to affect their reporting. Again, that's why Fox News (who has both conservative and liberal reporters) really are more balanced. Unless you consider an 89% figure to be "balanced!"

[quote/]

Rathergate? let me guess, from FOX, right?

Rather didn't check his sources, simple. It's not been proven he delibrately lied.

By pointing at the other groups your conviently ignoring your own group behind you, so what if they are liberal? they have a journalistic obligation to tell the truth, something which many FOX journalists seemlingly waive.

you've missed my point also, about how FOX needs to be Fair and Balanced in it's reporting, or it's false advertising. the more you say FOX is right, the more this statement is proven false, something which you'll find will happen often when the words "FOX" and "Fair and Balanced" are mentioned.

Fleet 500

02-13-2005, 11:46 PM

I think there is a place for a right-leaning network (Although Fox's own catchline is "Fair and Balanced, meaning it's false advertising if their leaning any particular way), but not one that actually thinks nothing of changing, editing or manipulating a story in order to "be the most watched Cable news channel".

And for all you know those figures could only have been released after he was ousted.

Rathergate? let me guess, from FOX, right?

Rather didn't check his sources, simple. It's not been proven he delibrately lied.

By pointing at the other groups your conviently ignoring your own group behind you, so what if they are liberal? they have a journalistic obligation to tell the truth, something which many FOX journalists seemlingly waive.

you've missed my point also, about how FOX needs to be Fair and Balanced in it's reporting, or it's false advertising. the more you say FOX is right, the more this statement is proven false, something which you'll find will happen often when the words "FOX" and "Fair and Balanced" are mentioned.
You are picking on the wrong station- CBS (and, btw, the N.Y. Times and L.A. Times manipulate stories many times).

Nice try there. I heard about the rising economy on radio shows (yes, conservative ones because there is no way liberal radio shows would have said the economy was getting better just before a Republican incumbent was running).

I actually can't remember where I heard the term "Rathergate." I think it's highly unlikely that Fox used it first because people like you would be screaming "BIASED!"

Dan Rather saw info which could potentially harm (politically) Bush so he went forward with it without checking the source because he IS biased. That only proves it.

As we have seen, a news station saturated with liberals taints the news. And many people are sick of it- that's why they are switching to Fox News.

In the 30 years I've been watching TV news, Fox is the most balanced. It's not false advertising because they are much more balanced than the other liberal-leaning stations. Again, Fox has many liberal reporters (Greta, Geraldo, Colmes and quite a few others whom I can't remember).
Do you really think the mainstream media, whom 89% are non-conservatives, are going to be more fair and balanced than Fox whose ratio of conservatives/liberals is much closer to 50/50 than any of those other stations?

IBrake4Rainbows

02-13-2005, 11:53 PM

Matra et Alpine

02-14-2005, 02:46 AM

And Fox is exactly right about Soros... he IS a left-wing billionaire who funds many liberal efforts. Do you doubt that? Why are you so anti-Fox but not anti-CBS or BBC which, from info I've read, is much more left-wing than Fox is right-wing.
YET AGAIN, you stuck that record on.

Respond to OFCOM's comments regarding FOX and their claims about the BBC.
Claims that you clearly use to bolster your bias on the BBC beign Left-Wing :)

Of course, you may be right in your own analysis because I think you consider everything leeft of your viewpoint to be "left wing".
You and Atilla must get on fine out there on the lonely right touchline in that case :)

And let me see, it's BAD for a billionaire to support "left wing" and "liberal" causes but OK for billionaries to fund right wing and neo-conservatist groups. You try to get it both ways Fleet. Either funding is OK ir funding is BAD. Make your mind up. As it's clearly good in USA politics then just shut up about anyone choosing to fund opinions you don't like.
As I said, though, I guess Fox will just have to settle for being the cable news network with the highest ratings (and in some polls, the most believable news network).
Yep, like has been said, they're clearly happy to be the McDonalds of the news industry. Just as that behemoth is startign to realise it has to be trutgul about what it's meals actually contain so will FOX some day realise they have to too :)
You can't blame Fox for being angered. What if you owned a successful cable news channel and a film was made about it filled with inaccuracies?
But they clearly aren't.
NORMALLY what happens in cases like that is they take them to court or watchdogs.
Liek OFCOM - they lost.
The ONLY point they've tried to stop this film on was because it contained footage FOX had taken but cut from their programmes. ONLY the copyright issue was taken up - and I beleive dropped because of righ-to-access laws.
So far I've not heard of a FOX programme which tried to show how balanced they are.
To take your BBC challenges. Over the years there have been many programs showing how the BBC formulated opinion from news and disseminateed it in a numebr of cases. In some to show there HAD been editorial bias and hwo it was handled.
No channel ornews show can be perfect all the time.
The problem with "biased" channels is it is consistent.
Occasioanl lapses cannot be condemned or we limit the freedom of the press.
For example last years attack in a BBC program on the Labour Government ( a left wing gov BTW Fleet :) ).

Matra et Alpine

02-14-2005, 02:54 AM

Speaking of "brainwashing," that definitely applies to the many people who had no choice but watch all of those left-leaning news channels before Fox began.
And you know the make-up of all the news channels available to us in Europe, Aisa, Africa and Australia HOW ?
Sounds like your playing the "brainwashing record" to the rest of us Fleet.
We've seen more extreme TV channels than you can dream up :)
I'm talking about news channels who did not report the economy was beginning to grow just before the Nov. '92 election.
And when did you get an economics degree ?
It's is NOT valid to report a short-term increase in an economy. ONLY long-term trends can be accounted for as short-term is driven by immediate events which may NOT reflect the underlyign strength or weakness.
It was only after Bush Sr. lost it was aired that the economy had been growing by 1 or 2% since around Sept. of that year. So, because of media bias, people (those brainwashed by the liberal media) voted believing that the economy had not yet recovered when it already was starting to.

And can you prove to all of us here that "pressure" wasn't applied in the editorial offices to get that good news over ?
Can you "prove" to us hear that having won the election that American News channels didnt' feel compelled to report that news in a bid to maintina ratings - after all you seem to cosnider ratings as the prime-face for being a news channel :(
Like I've said before, thank God there is at least one non-liberal news station (Fox) and you people can have your McDonald's-type C"B.S.", ABC, NBC, and the others.
You soudn liek the kind of man who has never tasted pate de foie gras or even a decetn steak and claims that a big mac is the best food around.
You have no standard to measure by Fleet as by your own admissions you only watch FOX.

Can you please stop this stupidity and return to cars ?
I have been refused admission to the Accident and Emergecy unit at my local hospital. They have refused to stitch my sides together again having down it each time I read one of your posts. PLEASE, I cannot have my sides splti again, so dont' make me laugh so much. TAHNK YOU :)

On the topic -- all the cars beign listed so far are RWD and most are fronte engine. Are there any American FWD cars that anyone likes ?

Blitz_

02-14-2005, 04:47 AM

Matra et Alpine

02-14-2005, 06:01 AM

spi-ti-tout

02-14-2005, 08:50 AM

FINALLY this is where I enter. Escuse me if I don't reply soon, just am being very busy nowadays.

You are picking on the wrong station- CBS (and, btw, the N.Y. Times and L.A. Times manipulate stories many times).

Nice try there. I heard about the rising economy on radio shows (yes, conservative ones because there is no way liberal radio shows would have said the economy was getting better just before a Republican incumbent was running).

I actually can't remember where I heard the term "Rathergate." I think it's highly unlikely that Fox used it first because people like you would be screaming "BIASED!"

Dan Rather saw info which could potentially harm (politically) Bush so he went forward with it without checking the source because he IS biased. That only proves it.

As we have seen, a news station saturated with liberals taints the news. And many people are sick of it- that's why they are switching to Fox News.

In the 30 years I've been watching TV news, Fox is the most balanced. It's not false advertising because they are much more balanced than the other liberal-leaning stations. Again, Fox has many liberal reporters (Greta, Geraldo, Colmes and quite a few others whom I can't remember).
Do you really think the mainstream media, whom 89% are non-conservatives, are going to be more fair and balanced than Fox whose ratio of conservatives/liberals is much closer to 50/50 than any of those other stations?
Didn't you say the only station you watched was FOX? If that's the only station you've been watching so far, I think Its pretty blunt that you claim that other stations report biased and false news.

What I find more irratating, is the fact that you haven't given proof on anything at all. The 2,3,4, and 5 paragraphs all have info without any proof.

Just because Fox has many liberal reporters, DOESN"T mean they DON'T have more of the opposite. It doesn't tell us anything at all. Where is the proof that Fox is 50/50?

crisis

02-14-2005, 02:57 PM

And Fox is exactly right about Soros... he IS a left-wing billionaire who funds many liberal efforts. Do you doubt that?
I wouldnt know Soros from a smack in the head. It is irrelevant to my point. He may be,and probably is biased. I have said before that all media has its own agenda. What is different about FOX is that many people, (nearly all on this site who have commented included (except you)) believe it to overtly biased. Soros aside, and Im sure he picked his interviewees (!?) because they said what he wanted, they still gave damning views on FOXs bias and credibility. And the fact that all FOX could do was criticise its detractors, not defend the allegations, means they didnt help their cause one bit.

Why are you so anti-Fox but not anti-CBS or BBC
I will again re post a previous comment you ignored.

"Originally Posted by Fleet 500
Quoting "anonymous" former Fox News reporters without a link is invalid.

And, I already said, commentors are not reporters. As if there are no commentators on CNN!

"I will post this again for the third time. No one, me included said they trust CNN or anyone else. In fact I said I trust none of them entirely.

Gene Kimmel Sr.Dir. of the Public Policy & Advocacy Consumers Union
"When you see the properties Rupert Murdoch owns around the
world, the strong, conservative point-of-view that those
properties often reflect, it’s different than ABC or CBS or NBC. Sure, they reflecta point-of-view but not nearly as strong or consistently
strong from one ideological perspective."

which, from info I've read, is much more left-wing than Fox is right-wing. As I said, though, I guess Fox will just have to settle for being the cable news network with the highest ratings (and in some polls, the most believable news network).
ITs also obvious it is FOX vs the rest. So what you are saying is the rest of the medias wrong and FOX is right. Again ratings only support that fact that it appeals to the masses or the lowest common denominator.
For example the two top ratings shows in the US for the week Jan 24th - 30th were American idol. There is you ratings credibility. :p

You can't blame Fox for being angered. What if you owned a successful cable news channel and a film was made about it filled with inaccuracies?
Anyone getting caught out is going to be p!ssed. Im dont care about their reaction. I am criticising their credibility. What they cant do is defend them. Yep no wonder theyre angered. Caught out and made to look foolish.

CdocZ

02-14-2005, 02:58 PM

ok, to end the bias argument.........dont forget, you 2 are being bias just in your point of view

crisis

02-14-2005, 03:27 PM

ok, to end the bias argument.........dont forget, you 2 are being bias just in your point of view
What :confused:

CdocZ

02-14-2005, 03:28 PM

crisis

02-14-2005, 03:44 PM

your point of view......like......for instance, a story will always be different depending on what a person thinks of the characters, and what they think is important in the story. there is pretty much no avoiding it. also, your morals come into play depending on wether your closer to the extremes of pacifism and war-mongerism.
There are many ways to discuss or argue. The easiest is to criticise the other person personally or his beliefs etc. This is a subjective style of argument. It does not address (indeed mostly avoids) the issue but trys to discredit the other persons credibility. By doing so the protagonist attempts to win by default. A better way is the objective style. One which adresses logically, the issues, and deals with facts. I am dying for Fleet to post something that refutes the claims made against FOX. Not the fact that FOX are upset or that they are throwing shit at ex employees who dare to dis them. He like FOX deals with vagueries and ridiculing others points of view.
I dont know the characters and am going on information written by people in a position to make the comments. If they are lies Im sure FOX would litigate.
I try to argue pragmatically, not moraly. My morals are my own problem. I am not an extreme pacifist or an extreme war monger. In fact that is the point> I will always argue with people at extremes because they adhere to dogma and cant think for themselves.
I am not biased. I have no allegiance to either of Americas political parties (why would I? I have no allegiance to Australias.). That is why I can argue the facts as presented, not with a pre programmed bias.

crisis

02-14-2005, 04:01 PM

Boooorrrriiiingg, lmfao!!! :D take a minute, read back about 10 pages and you will realise that all of u are making this thread as boring as hell and ur all complaining like a pack of hungry seniors at the local buffet restraunt. Who cares really, what u are saying is that u cant make ur own opinions, listen to the radio, newspapers, other people, think for yourself!!
.
Some of Blitz's more esteemed contributions. ;)

Forum: Australian cars

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Forum: Chop forums

:) lol i tried finding marble but this seemed whacky so i tried it, good lcuk esperante, so far ur drawn wif UCR

Forum: Chop forums

Hey UCR, i didnt say anything about your chop, so shut the **** up ok? wtf did ublast my chop for u fag

Forum: Chop forums

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO i missed out

Forum: Chop forums

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, lmfao i just missed out, lol plz if u want to vote for me just text vote

Forum: Miscellaneous Cookie monster vs. Bert and Ernie

Hmmm who would win? i would have to say elmo, he would ask them to tickle him, then he would open up a big can of woop-ass and swallow them with his monster like tummy that swallows and digests all...

Australian cars

omg omg, wat a coincedence, i was drinking highlander last nite, half a carton to be exact, lol then i went rallying this morning, 82 corrola, got some major air, landed and the engine dropped about 5cm and the head gaskets screwed up and i think the manifolds have had it

Did you do all of this thinking for yourself. You must have a headache.

Fleet and Matra, get over it, pm from now on and argue about which station tells the news most truthfully, its not that interesting and is overbloating a simple agrument. What wat YOU like, dont try to make other people change.
The point of these forums, Einstien, is for people to have discussions. If they wanted to pm each other all the time they could send emails. Other people have also added useful contributions (not you) so thats why we use open forums. If you dont like it dont keep coming back.
You sound like the people who watch SBS shows and phone in the morning to complain about the nudity.

Fleet 500

02-14-2005, 04:33 PM

Didn't you say the only station you watched was FOX? If that's the only station you've been watching so far, I think Its pretty blunt that you claim that other stations report biased and false news.

What I find more irratating, is the fact that you haven't given proof on anything at all. The 2,3,4, and 5 paragraphs all have info without any proof.

Just because Fox has many liberal reporters, DOESN"T mean they DON'T have more of the opposite. It doesn't tell us anything at all. Where is the proof that Fox is 50/50?
Fox is the usual station I watch. I do watch others (mainly cable stations like CNN, MSNBC, CNBC) just to get other info and see what's going on with those stations.

If you really think that those other stations are not liberal I really don't know what to say to you or how to respond. Those other stations have been well known as liberal stations for many years. Maybe you don't realize it because you haven't been watching TV news as long as I have (almost 30 years).

Fox is definitely closer to a 50/50 ratio than the other TV news stations- that doesn't even have to be mentioned!
Again, just because a station like Fox presents both sides of a story (conservative/liberal) does not mean they are "biased" or can't be trusted.

Fleet 500

02-14-2005, 04:47 PM

In the 10 years i've been exposed to the Black box, i can honestly say i'd rather slit my eyeballs with razors than watch another episode of the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Combes, the Beltway boys et al on FOX. it's that bad.

How am i picking on the wrong station? i'm picking on the one i see as utter drivel.

So let me guess; you were listening to a right-wing radio station and heard this 5 or 6 months beforehand? get real.

Rather saw information he thought the American public needed to know, he was a fool for not checking his sources, but in the end you cannot tell me in good conscience why he did what he did; he was reporting, simple, he'd been doing it for ages.

and from what i have seen of Hannity and Combes i could hardly call Colmes a liberal, if he is, he's token.

Sorry to break the news to you, but people are leaving in droves the debate-type shows of CNN (for example)- one reason why "Crossfire" was cancelled- and tuning into shows like "The O'Reilly Factor," "Hannity & Colmes," and "On the Record." Why? Because those shows have energetic debates and you get a good cross-section of conservatives and liberals. Why do you think shows like O'Reilly and Hannity/Colmes are "that bad?" On H & C,there are the two hosts- one conservative and one liberal and usually two guests- one conservative and one liberal. Unlike the mainstream media shows, the conservatives are heard just as often as liberals.
As for O'Reilly, I would classify him as more on the conservative side than on the liberal side (which is a good thing, btw). He is not ultra-conservative or extreme right-wing. Also, almost all of the liberals O'Reilly has on his show asked to be invited back on.

You may as well face it... Fox News is on top (the most-watched cable news station) and it probably will be for a long time. And I say it's about time there is a TV news station out there which is not obviously left-wing.

I can post statistics showing that the economy was beginning to grow again just before the '92 election (and the mainstream media did not report it until after the election- like I said, we could have really used a Fox News-type station back then). I heard about the economic stats just after the election not 6 months before.

Rather went ahead with the story without checking because it was a potential scandal about Bush and we all know that Dan Rather is anti-Bush.

Funny how many people claim that Colmes isn't a liberal. If you know what issues he supports and doesn't support, you would know that he is. And I think Alan Colmes knows more about Alan Colmes than you do!

Fleet 500

02-14-2005, 05:41 PM

I would lay money on a wager that the news channels Sky, CBS, BBC, CNN et al would each play more true and fairer stories each day than Fox plays in a week. the differance between those news channels and Fox is that they don't report opinion as fact.
Oh, boy! You have just planted your foot firmly in your mouth! (At least with CNN).

First, there was that story a while about the CNN cover-up:
CNN admits that knowledge of murder, torture and planned assassination were supressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau.
Details: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/CNNs_Iraqi_Cover-up.asp

Then, just today, it has been reported that CNN executive Eason Jordon quit because he told an international audience that American forces in Iraq deliberately killed journalists. He later backed off that statement but CNN forced him to quit. Bill O'Reilly knew about this last week but waited for proof. You see, regardless of what you and others claim, Fox News verifies stories before reporting on them (unlike Dan Rather).
BTW, MSNBC attacks Fox regularly, probably because their ratings have been very bad. And their ratings are low because (thanks to other cable news networks and the Internet) viewers are more aware than they used to be.

Fox News has been on the air for 8 and 1/2 years and has had the fewest amount of hard news controversies. How does your "biased" theory explain that? Fox, unlike CNN, has never fired an executive.

You may also want to check out this site:
http://www.thatliberalmedia.com This site provides examples of the rampant media bias (they single out mainly the L.A. Times and N.Y. Times).

You just go right on and say that you wager the other news channels play more fair and truer stories... you are just going to sound more ridiculous!

IBrake4Rainbows

02-14-2005, 08:38 PM

Sorry to break the news to you, but people are leaving in droves the debate-type shows of CNN (for example)- one reason why "Crossfire" was cancelled- and tuning into shows like "The O'Reilly Factor," "Hannity & Colmes," and "On the Record." Why? Because those shows have energetic debates and you get a good cross-section of conservatives and liberals.

Sure they do. Thats why you yourself called fox news right-wing, so they can be "Fair And Balanced" and still present the rights viewpoint? get real.
Why do you think shows like O'Reilly and Hannity/Colmes are "that bad?" On H & C,there are the two hosts- one conservative and one liberal and usually two guests- one conservative and one liberal. Unlike the mainstream media shows, the conservatives are heard just as often as liberals.

On H&C all i see are two conservatives, who often get into an argument over who likes Bush's policy/reaction/hating Kerry more.

As for O'Reilly, I would classify him as more on the conservative side than on the liberal side (which is a good thing, btw). He is not ultra-conservative or extreme right-wing. Also, almost all of the liberals O'Reilly has on his show asked to be invited back on.

O'Reilly is the worst of them all. He's so opinionated that he truly believes his opinion is a fact. this is NOT news, this is Jerry Springer with a Newsdesk.

You may as well face it... Fox News is on top (the most-watched cable news station) and it probably will be for a long time. And I say it's about time there is a TV news station out there which is not obviously left-wing.

In case you hadn't noticed i had faced it, i had acknowledged that Fox was popular, but being popular does NOT make you right. Might want to learn that distinction.

I can post statistics showing that the economy was beginning to grow again just before the '92 election (and the mainstream media did not report it until after the election- like I said, we could have really used a Fox News-type station back then). I heard about the economic stats just after the election not 6 months before.

Feel free to. I'd actually like to see them.

Rather went ahead with the story without checking because it was a potential scandal about Bush and we all know that Dan Rather is anti-Bush.

Funny how many people claim that Colmes isn't a liberal. If you know what issues he supports and doesn't support, you would know that he is. And I think Alan Colmes knows more about Alan Colmes than you do!

I would say that Rather was stupid for not double checking his sources, but i highly doubt he did it delibrately, he is a Celebrated news caster and this is the first incident of this kind he has even been involved in.

Just because colmes Bio on FOX says he's the liberal POV, doesn't mean he is. I'd like to hear something from HIM saying he's a liberal, otherwise us discussing what he is becomes meaningless.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-14-2005, 08:42 PM

Oh, boy! You have just planted your foot firmly in your mouth! (At least with CNN).

First, there was that story a while about the CNN cover-up:
CNN admits that knowledge of murder, torture and planned assassination were supressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau.
Details: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/CNNs_Iraqi_Cover-up.asp

Then, just today, it has been reported that CNN executive Eason Jordon quit because he told an international audience that American forces in Iraq deliberately killed journalists. He later backed off that statement but CNN forced him to quit. Bill O'Reilly knew about this last week but waited for proof. You see, regardless of what you and others claim, Fox News verifies stories before reporting on them (unlike Dan Rather).

How interesting that such a story (About a rival nes service) was broken on FOX. I've never seen any reporting on CNN saying that the U.S. army delibrately killed Journalists, only that piece i mentioned earlier about a journalist that came under attack.

BTW, MSNBC attacks Fox regularly, probably because their ratings have been very bad. And their ratings are low because (thanks to other cable news networks and the Internet) viewers are more aware than they used to be.

So because their ratings are bad they attack FOX? how about they attack FOX's content. aalso ever thought that MSNBC is a business channel, no one watches them for fun, like i do for FOX.

Fox News has been on the air for 8 and 1/2 years and has had the fewest amount of hard news controversies. How does your "biased" theory explain that? Fox, unlike CNN, has never fired an executive.

They haven't fired an executive because Rupert Murdoch says so. It's as simple as that.

You may also want to check out this site:
http://www.thatliberalmedia.com This site provides examples of the rampant media bias (they single out mainly the L.A. Times and N.Y. Times).

You just go right on and say that you wager the other news channels play more fair and truer stories... you are just going to sound more ridiculous!

I will go on, because thats what i believe, I DON'T believe a single story ever played on FOX, and will never quote one here. I'll check the Website, probably written by another "FOX is beyond failure" fan like yourself, and laugh.

And it's funny, but somehow your the one coming off as ridiculous, following the FOX theory of "If you can't argue the point, reduce the argument to a farce".

crisis

02-14-2005, 09:05 PM

Oh, boy! You have just planted your foot firmly in your mouth! (At least with CNN).

First, there was that story a while about the CNN cover-up:
CNN admits that knowledge of murder, torture and planned assassination were supressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau.
Details: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/CNNs_Iraqi_Cover-up.asp

Then, just today, it has been reported that CNN executive Eason Jordon quit because he told an international audience that American forces in Iraq deliberately killed journalists. He later backed off that statement but CNN forced him to quit. Bill O'Reilly knew about this last week but waited for proof. You see, regardless of what you and others claim, Fox News verifies stories before reporting on them (unlike Dan Rather).
BTW, MSNBC attacks Fox regularly, probably because their ratings have been very bad. And their ratings are low because (thanks to other cable news networks and the Internet) viewers are more aware than they used to be.

Fox News has been on the air for 8 and 1/2 years and has had the fewest amount of hard news controversies. How does your "biased" theory explain that? Fox, unlike CNN, has never fired an executive.

You may also want to check out this site:
http://www.thatliberalmedia.com This site provides examples of the rampant media bias (they single out mainly the L.A. Times and N.Y. Times).

You just go right on and say that you wager the other news channels play more fair and truer stories... you are just going to sound more ridiculous!
OK CNN cant be truste also. But I already agreed on that. That torture supression had more to do with self preservation ie keeping its Bahgdad bureau open ( as cleary stated) than than trying to distort the news for a political purpose. As I said none are above suspicion. Pity you cant admit that too.

Fleet 500

02-14-2005, 09:58 PM

I will go on, because thats what i believe, I DON'T believe a single story ever played on FOX, and will never quote one here. I'll check the Website, probably written by another "FOX is beyond failure" fan like yourself, and laugh.

And it's funny, but somehow your the one coming off as ridiculous, following the FOX theory of "If you can't argue the point, reduce the argument to a farce".
Going by your inept first sentence, you are more biased than even the Los Angeles Times (and that's saying a lot).
You don't believe a single story ever played on Fox? Just shows your unfairness to the very channel you are criticizing!
BTW, here are some Zogby poll numbers (from a couple of years ago):
Question- "Which news outlet do you trust most?"
Fox News.......... 77%
CNN................. 66
Wall St. Journal.. 50
N.Y. Times........ 43

Fleet 500

02-14-2005, 10:01 PM

OK CNN cant be truste also. But I already agreed on that. That torture supression had more to do with self preservation ie keeping its Bahgdad bureau open ( as cleary stated) than than trying to distort the news for a political purpose. As I said none are above suspicion. Pity you cant admit that too.
Glad you realize that Fox is one of the least biased new channels (not the most).
Yeah, I guess letting the torturing continue is okay as long as CNN kept the bureau open. :rolleyes: You are joking, right?
A real News Channel (like Fox) would have, of course, left Iraq as soon as they found out about those atrocities.

Fleet 500

02-14-2005, 10:06 PM

I would say that Rather was stupid for not double checking his sources, but i highly doubt he did it delibrately, he is a Celebrated news caster and this is the first incident of this kind he has even been involved in.

Just because colmes Bio on FOX says he's the liberal POV, doesn't mean he is. I'd like to hear something from HIM saying he's a liberal, otherwise us discussing what he is becomes meaningless.
I still don't see why you keep criticizing Fox News, which has had the fewest amount of hard news controversies, rather than the other more obviously biased channels? Again, do only left-wing news channels report the "truth." Your reply makes no sense. Fox News DOES have both conservative and liberal guests (and hosts). You can say "sure they do" all you want but it's true.

Yes, I'm saying exactly that- MSNBC attacks Fox, and ratings that station's low ratings is one reason why.

C'mon, everyone who follows the news knows that Dan Rather is anti-Bush and a liberal. Stop wasting your time trying to defend him.

Unless you can offer proof that Colmes is a liberal, going by what he says and what issues he favors and doesn't favor, I will still consider him a liberal. (Besides, who would want to pretend he is a liberal? Just thinking about it makes me nauseous. I don't think I could be that good of an actor to pull that off- Colmes would have to be a GREAT actor!)

IBrake4Rainbows

02-14-2005, 10:23 PM

I still don't see why you keep criticizing Fox News, which has had the fewest amount of hard news controversies, rather than the other more obviously biased channels? Again, do only left-wing news channels report the "truth." Your reply makes no sense. Fox News DOES have both conservative and liberal guests (and hosts). You can say "sure they do" all you want but it's true.

Congratulations! you've again made no point whatsoever, it's akin to talking to a brick wall. I've just watched FOX for a few hours (3:30 till 5:30) and I still haven't seen a guest that contradicts the Stations opinion on an issue, Liberal or not.

Yes, I'm saying exactly that- MSNBC attacks Fox, and ratings that station's low ratings is one reason why.

C'mon, everyone who follows the news knows that Dan Rather is anti-Bush and a liberal. Stop wasting your time trying to defend him.

I will because he is (Was, he's retired now) a trusted news journalist, often proving his stories completely correct. One bad egg and all of a sudden he's anti-bush, Liberal and against america.

Unless you can offer proof that Colmes is a liberal, going by what he says and what issues he favors and doesn't favor, I will still consider him a liberal. (Besides, who would want to pretend he is a liberal? Just thinking about it makes me nauseous. I don't think I could be that good of an actor to pull that off- Colmes would have to be a GREAT actor!)

Methinks he isn't pretending at all, he's just been billed incorrectly.

And for MSNBC to be so utterly biased smacks of FOX sensationalism of an issue.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-14-2005, 10:25 PM

Going by your inept first sentence, you are more biased than even the Los Angeles Times (and that's saying a lot).
You don't believe a single story ever played on Fox? Just shows your unfairness to the very channel you are criticizing!

You've once again fallen into the age-old trap of accepting Opinion as Fact. How very FOX.

BTW, here are some Zogby poll numbers (from a couple of years ago):
Question- "Which news outlet do you trust most?"
Fox News.......... 77%
CNN................. 66
Wall St. Journal.. 50
N.Y. Times........ 43

This poll paid for by FOX news network, no doubt.

and what did they survey, 1000 people?

Egg Nog

02-14-2005, 10:27 PM

Fox News DOES have both conservative and liberal guests (and hosts). You can say "sure they do" all you want but it's true.

It's true that 80% of their guests are conservatives. Cope with facts.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-14-2005, 10:30 PM

Glad you realize that Fox is one of the least biased new channels (not the most).
Yeah, I guess letting the torturing continue is okay as long as CNN kept the bureau open. :rolleyes: You are joking, right?
A real News Channel (like Fox) would have, of course, left Iraq as soon as they found out about those atrocities.

As a matter of Course FOX played down these images, if you'll read a post from Crisis a few pages back, quoting a FOX internal memo, it's playing down the issue.

A real news channel would not have sat on the story, FOX might just have done the same thing as CNN, we will never know.

And why leave Iraq, as a Journalist i'd be searching for more abuse!

Fleet 500

02-14-2005, 10:48 PM

This poll paid for by FOX news network, no doubt.

and what did they survey, 1000 people?
You are hopeless. YOU are the one who is an extremely biased person. When in doubt, blame Fox!
You don't like the numbers, then it must be a poll paid for by Fox (which it isn't; Zogby is indepedently-run).
I know reading those numbers was painful for you. Good luck in your recovery.

Fleet 500

02-14-2005, 10:51 PM

It's true that 80% of their guests are conservatives. Cope with facts.
A link with that info, please?

Fleet 500

02-14-2005, 10:59 PM

Methinks he isn't pretending at all, he's just been billed incorrectly.

And for MSNBC to be so utterly biased smacks of FOX sensationalism of an issue.
Wow, Fox has been on for 8 and 1/2 years and you watched a full two hours! Were you watching a general news show or one of the opinion/debate shows?

Dan Rather, trusted? Lol. He's always been a "bad egg." He just wasn't caught until recently.

How should Colmes be "billed?" And are you more qualified to catagorize him than others?

Egg Nog

02-14-2005, 11:01 PM

A link with that info, please?

I thought you said you saw "Outfoxed"?

Oh wait, anything that has any hint of "liberal spin" must be completely fact-free. My mistake.

Fleet 500

02-14-2005, 11:12 PM

Fleet 500

02-14-2005, 11:14 PM

I thought you said you saw "Outfoxed"?

Oh wait, anything that has any hint of "liberal spin" must be completely fact-free. My mistake.
I never said I saw it. Besides, it's inaccurate. Like the film saying Fox News employees were fired- it was Fox not Fox News!

You have a good point- liberals can't be trusted! ;)

IBrake4Rainbows

02-14-2005, 11:42 PM

You are hopeless. YOU are the one who is an extremely biased person. When in doubt, blame Fox!
You don't like the numbers, then it must be a poll paid for by Fox (which it isn't; Zogby is indepedently-run).
I know reading those numbers was painful for you. Good luck in your recovery.

Right.

So the one pointing flaws in your precious little "News" channel is obviously biased and wrong.

So i read the post above me.

And laugh hard.

I know reading numbers quoted from Outfoxed (And proven, by independantly run companies) must hurt. I'll see you in the recovery ward.

Link: http://www.fair.org/extra/0407/special-report.html

And for the record, companies take out these types of polls all the time, and you didn't answer how many people were surveyed.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-14-2005, 11:45 PM

Wow, Fox has been on for 8 and 1/2 years and you watched a full two hours! Were you watching a general news show or one of the opinion/debate shows?

Dan Rather, trusted? Lol. He's always been a "bad egg." He just wasn't caught until recently.

How should Colmes be "billed?" And are you more qualified to catagorize him than others?

Find me the info on Dan Rather being a "Bad Egg" since he began. "He wasn't Caught" implies there was a witchhunt for his "Liberal" head.

I caught a News break and the O'Reilly factor (Watched purely for it's hilarity Factor). really entertaining stuff.

I am no more qualified than you are to call him either a Conservative or liberal, so since neither of us can win that point, shall we let it go already?

IBrake4Rainbows

02-14-2005, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Fleet 500:
"I can post statistics showing that the economy was beginning to grow again just before the '92 election."

Originally posted by IBrake4Rainbows:

"Feel free to. I'd actually like to see them."

For this one, look about 60% down from the top of the page, at the graph. The GDP was 2.6% for all of 1992.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3617/is_1994_Annual/ai_14698358

And this one... the second paragraph.
"Afte a slowdown at the beginning of the 1990s, in early 1992 the economy began to recover." And the liberals back then were saying things like "the worst economy in 40 years." Very untrue- it was worse in the mid-1970s.
http://www.link2exports.co.uk/marketprofiles/regions.asp?lsid=1326&pid=1208

Table 1: Gross Domestic Product,
1992-94
(year-to-year percentage changes in 1987 dollars)
1992 1993(1) 1994(2)

Gross Domestic Product 2.6 2.6 2.9
Personal consumption expenditures 2.6 2.7 2.9
Durable goods 7.0 6.8 6.8
Nondurable goods 1.4 1.3 1.5
Services 2.2 2.6 2.6
Gross private domestic investment 8.5 10.9 6.1
Fixed investment 6.2 9.0 5.6
Nonresidential 2.9 8.4 5.7
Structures -6.0 2.9 -0.5
Equipment 6.9 12.9 7.9
Residential 16.3 8.7 5.5
Exports 6.4 3.1 2.8
Merchandise 6.6 3.8 3.4
Services 5.9 1.3 1.1
Imports 8.7 7.1 3.7
Merchandise 10.3 7.7 3.7
Petroleum and products 4.3 7.3 7.0
Services 1.2 4.0 3.7
Government purchases 0.1 1.7 0.7
National defense -7.1 -8.8 -6.1
Federal nondefense 6.2 2.4 3.8
State and local 2.2 0.9 3.0
Addendum: Final Sales 2.3 2.2 2.8

The bold indicates more spending in those areas after 1992, the Italics indicate more in 1992. Looks to me like more spending was done after Bush sr. was dismissed, indicating consumer confidence, while imports, exports, Residential, merchandise and services increased in 1992.

It's helpful if you quote the whole text, you'll find that after 1994 more spending took place in the GDP.

Matra et Alpine

02-15-2005, 06:18 AM

spi-ti-tout

02-15-2005, 09:15 AM

Fox is the usual station I watch. I do watch others (mainly cable stations like CNN, MSNBC, CNBC) just to get other info and see what's going on with those stations.

If you really think that those other stations are not liberal I really don't know what to say to you or how to respond. Those other stations have been well known as liberal stations for many years. Maybe you don't realize it because you haven't been watching TV news as long as I have (almost 30 years).

Fox is definitely closer to a 50/50 ratio than the other TV news stations- that doesn't even have to be mentioned!
Again, just because a station like Fox presents both sides of a story (conservative/liberal) does not mean they are "biased" or can't be trusted.
Ok people, I just need to know one thing before I start all over again
Exactly WHAT is a Liberal, and WHAT is a conservative??? :confused:

Matra et Alpine

02-15-2005, 10:05 AM

Egg Nog

02-15-2005, 11:47 AM

I never said I saw it. Besides, it's inaccurate. Like the film saying Fox News employees were fired- it was Fox not Fox News!

You have a good point- liberals can't be trusted! ;)

Look at previous posts. (I modified out text that didn't matter).

You should really watch "Outfoxed"

I did.

Sounds to me like you said you watched it.

Stop twisting everything so that it suits your argument. A person who never worked for Fox researched every person they interviewed over a two-month period, and 80% were republicans. That's not goddamn liberal bias, that's research.

If you can't even try win an argument without redirecting it to suit what little you think you know, I'm quite impressed that you actually bother.

spi-ti-tout

02-15-2005, 12:57 PM

LIBERAL :
founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
CONSERVATIVE :
Maintain the existing or traditional order.
A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

Now THAT has little to do with American politics and their interprations of those words. So I look forward to hearing others vies on these 2 political positions.
So Liberals are the ones that like liberty and freedom through law, and who like to take all benefits from it. A Bush group?

And Conservatives are the ones who like to stick with the old skool rules, and hate sudden change and corruption of the law. Anti-Bush?

I think I get it now. Its funny how people can be split like that :rolleyes:

crisis

02-15-2005, 02:59 PM

Glad you realize that Fox is one of the least biased new channels (not the most).
Dont remember saying that? :rolleyes: Still you have attributed me with other statements I dont remember making either. :)

Yeah, I guess letting the torturing continue is okay as long as CNN kept the bureau open. :rolleyes: You are joking, right?.
I also dont recall saying it was justified either. Ar eyou sure you are respnding to me?

A real News Channel (like Fox) would have, of course, left Iraq as soon as they found out about those atrocities.
Well it seems they didint as they had reporters imbedded anyway. Look how this O'Reilly clown bucks when a famous investigative reporters dares to postulate the notion that the US had Iraqis locked up for no reason in the torture prisons.

Inside Iraq's Abu Ghraib Prison
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
BILL O'REILLY HOST: Continuing now with our top story tonight, the repercussions of the Iraq torture situation.

Joining us from Washington is investigative reporter Seymour Hersh ,who became famous during the Vietnam war; you may remember his expose of the My Lai atrocities. He has written a major article about the Iraq torture situation in this week's issue of "The New Yorker magazine."

O'REILLY: Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I see unfolding here from what you told me and then General Karpinski told me is that there is a tension between the interrogators who wanted to find out by you know, using means that are dubious information, and the military police who basically who objected to some of these techniques.

But you can understand that like Vietnam, you have people shooting at Americans, blowing them up, and then running into mosques and hiding behind children and all of that. So how far do we go to get the information that protects our own troops?

That I guess is the essential question that led to this scandal, correct?

HERSH: Yes, but one of the things, the problem you have, of course you have to go if you're dealing with hardened Al Qaeda. There's not much mercy. And none of us would have much mercy.

The problem here is they were picking on people that they hadn't made any differentiation on. They didn't know. And you know, and the kind of stuff that was going on, Mr. O'Reilly, when you take an Arab man and you make him walk naked in front of other men, this is the greatest shame they can have. And then you have them simulate homosexual activities. You have young women and young men, the women in particular, videotaping and photographing them doing this. This is actually a form of torture and coercion.

O'REILLY: No, there's no question about it. And there's no question. There's no justification for it. But how do you wind up in a prison if you're just innocent and didn't do anything? See, our commanders and our embedded reporters tell me that they're way too busy to be rounding up guys in the marketplace and throwing them into prison.

So I'm going to dispute your contention that we had a lot of people in there with just no rap sheets at all, who were just picked up for no reason at all. The people who were in the prison were suspected of being either Al Qaeda or terrorists who were killing Americans and knew something about it.

HERSH: The problem is that it isn't my contention. It's the contention of Maj. Gen. Taguba, who was appointed by General Sanchez to do the investigation.

It's his contention, in his report, that more than 60 percent of the people in that prison, detainees, civilians, had nothing to do with the war effort.

O'REILLY: How did they get there then? Because I...

HERSH: Because how do they get into the prison?

I'll tell you how they get there. You bust the guy that doesn't have anything to do. You humiliate him. You break him down. You interrogate him. He gives up the name of you want to know who is an insurgent, who is Al Qaeda? He gives up any name he knows.

O'REILLY: Do you really believe that U.S. forces were sweeping Baghdad, and the others -- you're just picking people up off the street for no reason?

HERSH: Well, inevitably you get people in a sweep that have nothing to with what you're looking for.

O'REILLY: All right, now that's true. But to the number of...

HERSH: Of course.

O'REILLY: ...50 percent, I'm not buying that. Here we go, over baring personal opinion, "I could be wrong but Im saying it as if its fact" I mean, I could be wrong. But I'm going on the basis of our reporters in the field. And I'm asking them, have you ever seen any of these -- no. These guys are way to busy. They got stuff to do all day long. They're not sweeping people up.

HERSH: We're talking about last fall, when things weren't as acute as they are now, certainly it's a terrible situation right now. And everybody -- nobody is sweeping anything. They're in forced protection.

O'REILLY: Right.

HERSH: But last fall, things were much calmer. People were being swept. This did happen.

O'REILLY: All right.

HERSH: And I could tell you something else. Let me just say this. I believe the services have a -- look, the kids did bad things. But the notion that it's all just these kids [doing these things]... The officers are "in loco parentis" with these children. We send our children to war. And we have officers like that general, whose job is to be mother and father to these kids, to keep them out of trouble. The idea of watching these pictures, it's not only a failure of the kids, it's a failure of everybody in the command structure.

O'REILLY: Well, yes, it's the failure of the supervisors of those soldiers to create an environment of fear so they wouldn't do that. See, it's just appalling to me that they would take this so casually.

One more question and I will let you go here. Maj. Gen. Don Rider is the chief law enforcement officer of the Army. All right? He went in and also looked at this situation. And in a report said yes, we have a lot of trouble, but didn't red flag the kind of trouble that you reported on. Why?

HERSH: I just don't know because Don Rider has a great reputation among investigators in the CID, the criminal investigative division. They adore him. He's got a great reputation, but General Taguba again in his report really went after him in a way that one...

O'REILLY: Yes, he just said he wasn't tough enough on the initial report.

HERSH: He blew it.

O'REILLY: All right, Mr. Hersh, we hope if you get other information, hard information, you will come here and tell us about it after writing for "The New Yorker." Your article is very interesting. We do recommend it and we thank you for your time, sir.

HERSH: Sure.

crisis

02-15-2005, 03:03 PM

Look at previous posts. (I modified out text that didn't matter).
Sounds to me like you said you watched it.
Stop twisting everything so that it suits your argument. A person who never worked for Fox researched every person they interviewed over a two-month period, and 80% were republicans. that's not goddamn liberal bias, that's research.

If you can't even try win an argument without redirecting it to suit what little you think you know, I'm quite impressed that you actually bother.
Thanks , saved me looking for it.
OWNED! :D

Egg Nog

02-15-2005, 03:46 PM

So Liberals are the ones that like liberty and freedom through law, and who like to take all benefits from it. A Bush group?

And Conservatives are the ones who like to stick with the old skool rules, and hate sudden change and corruption of the law. Anti-Bush?

I think I get it now. Its funny how people can be split like that :rolleyes:

Nononono... Bush and his supporters are Conservatives (right-wing), and people who oppose him are Liberals (left-wing).

Liberals tend to favour progress and change, while Conservatives tend to like to keep things the way they've always been. This can be seen in many examples, such as the environment. Liberals are more likely to spend money preserving the environment, while Conservatives believe that money could be better spent elsewhere. Liberals are more likely to support same-sex marriage (viewed as a positive progressive change) while Conservatives are more likely to oppose the idea. Liberals gorvernments (In general - the US Democrats and Canadian "Liberal Party" are a bad exampe) tend to be focussed on and social freedom and care for the people, while Conservative governments are generally more concerned with power and corporate-driven economies.

Matra et Alpine

02-15-2005, 04:24 PM

Nononono... Bush and his supporters are Conservatives (right-wing), and people who oppose him are Liberals (left-wing).
Pretty much all American parties are conservatives.
Only slightly different shades of right wing blueness :)

Even the UK is heading that way now.
Only a few like Tommy Sheridan are still around getting voted in on a platform of returning production to the people etc etc. Scottish Socialist Party - at least it gives us a wider choice to pick the best candidates !!!

Egg Nog

02-15-2005, 04:47 PM

Pretty much all American parties are conservatives.
Only slightly different shades of right wing blueness :)

Oh, completely. You'll notice that I mentioned in the last bit of my post that the US Democrats and the Canadian "Liberal" parties are bad examples of left-wing governments.

I like that "different shades of blue" description :)

IBrake4Rainbows

02-15-2005, 10:06 PM

In Australia you've got the Liberal Party (In power at the moment, with John Howard (PM)'s head firmly up Mr. Bush's Ar#e, and the Labour Party, currently in leadership turmoil with a leader who has lost 2 elections to mr. Howard, you'd reckon he'd get the hint.

Both are pretty similar in policy, although the issue of Gay marraige and abortion is getting a lot of airplay, it's like choosing between Baby and Navy, to use Matra's analogy.

Fleet 500

02-15-2005, 11:15 PM

Sounds to me like you said you watched it.

Stop twisting everything so that it suits your argument. A person who never worked for Fox researched every person they interviewed over a two-month period, and 80% were republicans. That's not goddamn liberal bias, that's research.

If you can't even try win an argument without redirecting it to suit what little you think you know, I'm quite impressed that you actually bother.
No, again, I haven't watched it. Why should I? It's obviously some left-wing, anti-Fox film which is filled with fallacies.

Have you ever wondered why move conservatives are interviewed? It's because many of the liberals who are invited refuse.

What "redirecting?" I just happened point out things that were not accurate about Fox and show how other channels, like CNN, are the real biased not channels.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-15-2005, 11:18 PM

The "Redirect" Comes from pointing us to informations that can be manipulated both ways.

And the issue with OutFoxed is that you'd said you've seen it, whihc you now deny.

And i'm sure they invite Liberals, all 6 of them they want to. But judging by the treatment of those who have gone before, i don't blame them for not going.

Fleet 500

02-15-2005, 11:22 PM

Table 1: Gross Domestic Product,
1992-94
(year-to-year percentage changes in 1987 dollars)
1992 1993(1) 1994(2)

The bold indicates more spending in those areas after 1992, the Italics indicate more in 1992. Looks to me like more spending was done after Bush sr. was dismissed, indicating consumer confidence, while imports, exports, Residential, merchandise and services increased in 1992.

It's helpful if you quote the whole text, you'll find that after 1994 more spending took place in the GDP.
You forgot to post the link where you got the info.
Anyway, the mild recession (caused by a few things, including the '91 Gulf War and the Democrat-proposed tax hikes which Bush unfortunately agreed to sign) ended in mid- to late-1992. By the time of the Nov., '92 election, the economy had already began to recover. The GDP was actually in the minus range in late '91 and early '92 and went to the positive side in late '92 and into '93.

Fleet 500

02-15-2005, 11:23 PM

IBrake4Rainbows

02-15-2005, 11:25 PM

You forgot to post the link where you got the info.
Anyway, the mild recession (caused by a few things, including the '91 Gulf War and the Democrat-proposed tax hikes which Bush unfortunately agreed to sign) ended in mid- to late-1992. By the time of the Nov., '92 election, the economy had already began to recover. The GDP was actually in the minus range in late '91 and early '92 and went to the positive side in late '92 and into '93.

Sorry: I used the second link you gave me.

And how was it a Minor recession, if anything it had to be one of the major recessions of the past 20 years! Gas (Petrol) prices went up, Car makers and other manufacturers began to bleed, and the economy nearly nosedived.

What you said was the GDP was in fact at 2.6 for all of '92.

Thats a nice slip of the tongue.

If Bush chose to sign them, then he endorsed them just as much as the Democrats. Simple.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-15-2005, 11:26 PM

[QUOTE=Fleet 500]Originally posted by Fleet 500:
"I can post statistics showing that the economy was beginning to grow again just before the '92 election."

For this one, look about 60% down from the top of the page, at the graph. The GDP was 2.6% for all of 1992.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3617/is_1994_Annual/ai_14698358
[QUOTE/]

Nice to see your facts are nice and clear.

Fleet 500

02-15-2005, 11:28 PM

Fleet, having read your responses I grasp the difference in the understanding of news analysis that possibly exists and cuases the disagreements.

You TWISTED every response into a different meaning and then challenged THAT meaning !!!

Please "objective analysis" requires the person to REMOVE their bias and look with no preconception. Your posts and I suspect the basis for your love of FOX demonstrate a total lack of objectivitiy.

One example. Crisis said CNN can't be trusted either. YOU turn that into a "Glad you realize that Fox is one of the least biased new channels (not the most).
"
WOW !!!!
erm all Crisis was saying - as most folks here have had to repeat regularly - is that to consider only one news feed as prime source is dangerous and removes any objectivity from that persons understanding of world events.

Somehow you managed to contort a "nobody is to be trusted" inot a "FOX should be trusted more than others".
Like I said -- WOW !!!
Yeah, wow. All I did was challenge the false claim that Fox News can't be trusted and is extremely biased.
If that is so (which it isn't), then why has Fox had the fewest amount of hard news controversies and has never fired an executive?

What's dangerous was when there were only left-leaning new stations out there. Fox News was a well-needed, non-left leaning news station. Too bad that station wasn't around before 1996.

Fleet 500

02-15-2005, 11:29 PM

Egg Nog

02-15-2005, 11:30 PM

No, again, I haven't watched it. Why should I? It's obviously some left-wing, anti-Fox film which is filled with fallacies.

1. You lied, saying that you had seen it.
2. You are closed minded.
3. Of course it's anti-Fox, you tool. Wether or not it's correct is what we're arguing about.

Have you ever wondered why move conservatives are interviewed? It's because many of the liberals who are invited refuse.

Proof? Oh yeah, none. Don't be a hypocrite. If you can't believe anything we say when we cite researched facts, I actually don't know what else we could possibly say.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-15-2005, 11:31 PM

Yeah, wow. All I did was challenge the false claim that Fox News can't be trusted and is extremely biased.
If that is so (which it isn't), then why has Fox had the fewest amount of hard news controversies and has never fired an executive?

What's dangerous was when there were only left-leaning new stations out there. Fox News was a well-needed, non-left leaning news station. Too bad that station wasn't around before 1996.

Again with the Hard News Controversies and Never firing a CEO?

We've delt with this, find some new backing for your arguments.

It's good to have a left-leaning station, but NOT when the station claims it is FAIR AND BALANCED. the two terms are utterly incompatible. Sorry, they just are.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-15-2005, 11:32 PM

Thank you. :)

So your thanking me for proving you wrong?

You forgot to post the link where you got the info.
Anyway, the mild recession (caused by a few things, including the '91 Gulf War and the Democrat-proposed tax hikes which Bush unfortunately agreed to sign) ended in mid- to late-1992. By the time of the Nov., '92 election, the economy had already began to recover. The GDP was actually in the minus range in late '91 and early '92 and went to the positive side in late '92 and into '93.

Originally posted by Fleet 500:
"I can post statistics showing that the economy was beginning to grow again just before the '92 election."

Originally posted by IBrake4Rainbows:

"Feel free to. I'd actually like to see them."

For this one, look about 60% down from the top of the page, at the graph. The GDP was 2.6% for all of 1992.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3617/is_1994_Annual/ai_14698358

And this one... the second paragraph.
"Afte a slowdown at the beginning of the 1990s, in early 1992 the economy began to recover." And the liberals back then were saying things like "the worst economy in 40 years." Very untrue- it was worse in the mid-1970s.
http://www.link2exports.co.uk/marketprofiles/regions.asp?lsid=1326&pid=1208

Fleet 500

02-15-2005, 11:42 PM

Now THAT has little to do with American politics and their interprations of those words. So I look forward to hearing others vies on these 2 political positions.

Conservative: (In general) Favor low taxes, small government, strict punishment for crimes including the death penalty, pro-life, a strong defense/military, don't think the government should provide everything for its citizens.

Liberal: (In general) Favor high taxes, big government,thinks many criminals can be "reformed" and favor parole, oppose the death penalty, pro-choice, doesn't see the need for a strong defense/military, thinks the government should provide everything for its citizens from the cradle to the grave.

Egg Nog

02-15-2005, 11:44 PM

Wow, worded so very neutrally :rolleyes:

Fleet 500

02-15-2005, 11:45 PM

So your thanking me for proving you wrong?
No, I'm thanking you for saying the statistics I posted are clear.
I can tell you are not familiar things like GDP, unemployment rates and other similar data.

whiteballz

02-15-2005, 11:50 PM

It seems like there is a lot of American car bashing on this

there is good reason for that.

Fleet 500

02-15-2005, 11:54 PM

Well it seems they didint as they had reporters imbedded anyway. Look how this O'Reilly clown bucks when a famous investigative reporters dares to postulate the notion that the US had Iraqis locked up for no reason in the torture prisons.

Inside Iraq's Abu Ghraib Prison
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
BILL O'REILLY HOST: Continuing now with our top story tonight, the repercussions of the Iraq torture situation.

You are supposed to provide a link when posting transcripts.
You still don't get it... I'm talking about Fox purposely twisiting news it reports on and like I said, Fox has the fewest amount of hard news controversies.

Egg Nog

02-15-2005, 11:56 PM

Fox has the fewest amount of hard news controversies.

You ask us to offer all the backing in the world for every minor claim we make, and yet you never offer a shred of proof for your vague, frivolous statements? Show us that Fox has had "the fewest amount of controversies".

You still haven't responded to my last post.

SlickHolden

02-16-2005, 12:04 AM

Aussie Fox ?

IBrake4Rainbows

02-16-2005, 12:08 AM

No, I'm thanking you for saying the statistics I posted are clear.
I can tell you are not familiar things like GDP, unemployment rates and other similar data.

Care to enlighten me then on how an economy can be both improving and staying at the same 2.6 the entire year?

crisis

02-16-2005, 03:24 AM

You are supposed to provide a link when posting transcripts.
You still don't get it... I'm talking about Fox purposely twisiting news it reports on
No , you are all over the place. I am responding to your comment about CNN covering up the story about torture so thay could keep their office in Bahgdad. I merely pointed out here that along with trying to play down the statement by the reporter that innocent people got caught up in the sweeps and were also held and tortured, FOX had imbedded reporters there anyway so they were assured of getting the stories.

and like I said, Fox has the fewest amount of hard news controversies.
But they and you have not been able to refute the comments made on the documentary Outfoxed.

Heres your link but I dont really see the point. You dont beleive anything anti FOX link or not.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118955,00.html

Matra et Alpine

02-16-2005, 07:32 AM

Conservative: (In general) Favor low taxes, small government, strict punishment for crimes including the death penalty, pro-life, a strong defense/military, don't think the government should provide everything for its citizens.

Liberal: (In general) Favor high taxes, big government,thinks many criminals can be "reformed" and favor parole, oppose the death penalty, pro-choice, doesn't see the need for a strong defense/military, thinks the government should provide everything for its citizens from the cradle to the grave.
Thansk Fleet you confirm what I said.
American politics has a re-intepretation of these terms because it doens't have the concept fo a left wing at all.

Fleet 500

02-16-2005, 03:16 PM

Care to enlighten me then on how an economy can be both improving and staying at the same 2.6 the entire year?
It improved from a negative number (it had been -1.4% in late '91 and early '92) and improved to a plus number. The 2.6% is the average for that year. It could be called improving when it goes up each or for each quarter. Like, for example, 1.3% for the first quarter, 1.5% for the second, 1.9% for the third, and 2.8% for the last. That's just an example.

Fleet 500

02-16-2005, 07:50 PM

I merely pointed out here that along with trying to play down the statement by the reporter that innocent people got caught up in the sweeps and were also held and tortured, FOX had imbedded reporters there anyway so they were assured of getting the stories.

But they and you have not been able to refute the comments made on the documentary Outfoxed.

Heres your link but I dont really see the point. You dont beleive anything anti FOX link or not.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118955,00.html
I believe, at the time, only CNN knew about the atrocities. If Fox and other news stations knew about it, too, there would have not been any reason for CNN to cover it up.

The comments were refuted. For instance, the employees who were working for Fox but not Fox News- the inaccurate film claimed they were Fox News employees.

As for O'Reilly's comments from the link you posted, he has a right to make opinions. That's his job, if he just read the news he would be a news reporter and not a journalist. Think of Richard Cunningham from "Happy Days." In one episode, he revealed a scandal in the school cafeteria. At the end of the episode, he said, "That's what I want to be- a journalist" (Journalists research the news, not just report it, just like O'Reilly.) Allow me to give an example of how O'Reilly not only researches, but is helping the consumer... back when donations were going to the Red Cross for the families of 9/11 victims, his research revealed that the donated money was not being handled properly. Because of his story which aired on his show, the Red Cross had to account for every penny after that! As it should.
Another time, O'Reilly had on someone who was (to be found out later on because of O'Reilly's research) that he was cooperating with a terrorist organization. I'm don't remember too much of that story, but I do remember O'Reilly saying, at the end of the interview, "I'll be keeping my eye on you." He did, and continued to research, and found the man was a criminal who was eventually arrested.

You may be interested to read what O'Reilly said on his radio show today:
"Nothing's fair and balanced 100%, not even Fox News." What he and I are trying to get across is that Fox is more balanced than most of the other obviously liberal news stations.

Fleet 500

02-16-2005, 07:53 PM

Wow, worded so very neutrally :rolleyes:
It is accurate.

Fleet 500

02-16-2005, 08:08 PM

1. You lied, saying that you had seen it.
2. You are closed minded.
3. Of course it's anti-Fox, you tool. Wether or not it's correct is what we're arguing about.

Proof? Oh yeah, none. Don't be a hypocrite. If you can't believe anything we say when we cite researched facts, I actually don't know what else we could possibly say.
1. I don't recall saying I've seen it.
2. That's a laugh. All I've heard from others here are things like, "You can't believe anything from Fox." Not very open minded, are you people?
3. I'ts not correct, that's why the unprecedented act of not allowing Fox News time to react happened.

You really haven't "proved" anything. You've taken quotes from *commentators* and try to display them as reporters. There is a big difference.
Speaking of proof, I have proof that the major U.S. newspapers left-leaning.
Here is a comparison of the top 10 highest-circulation newspapers comparing the number of liberal and conservative columists.
Local op-ed columnists:

Newspaper.......................... Liberal........... Conservative

New York Times.................... 4................. 1
Los Angeles Times................. 3................. 1
New York Daily News.............. 5................. 1
Washington Post.................... 11............... 1
New York Post....................... 0................. 10 (the lone exception)
Chicago Tribune..................... 6................. 1
Houston Chronicle.................. 2.................. 0
Boston Globe......................... 4.................. 1
Atlanta Journal Constitution..... 3.................. 0

Total................................... 38................. 19

whiteballz

02-16-2005, 10:04 PM

source of those numbers please.

Egg Nog

02-16-2005, 11:53 PM

You've taken quotes from *commentators* and try to display them as reporters. There is a big difference.

It's interesting to hear the information. It seems wrong to me that so many of them would be Democrats. (And this is important, just because they're democrats doesn't mean they should be considered "liberal", as your list shows) Not saying it isn't true, I'm saying that it isn't very well balanced, which is the aim of the game. And that's what we're arguing against RE: Fox News. Anyways, let's stick to that topic rather than your unrelated interludes. Back on topic...

Anyway, research is research. They found that 80% of people Fox interviewed were Republicans. It doesn't matter how biased or unbiased a person might be, those are still the facts. And without any shred of proof, you say that's not the fault of the network.

All tiny fragments of debate aside, where do you place your values on a larger scale? (out of curiosity) I mean, even the American left isn't really left-wing, so the arguments seem a little bit off anyway. What do you find wrong about liberal values?

Egg Nog

02-16-2005, 11:54 PM

It is accurate.

Mine was worded neutrally on purpose. I'm trying to be fair, wheras you just hate anything farther left than Dick Cheney.

henk4

02-17-2005, 12:00 AM

Anyway, research is research. They found that 80% of people Fox interviewed were Republicans. It doesn't matter how biased or unbiased a person might be, those are still the facts. And without any shred of proof, you say that's not the fault of the network.

It is not only that but there is also difference in the way Republicans and Democrats are being interviewed. The reporters/commentators are not interested in the Democrat view, they only want to confront them with their own opinions/"facts" and want them to comment on that. Democrats will always have to be on the defense, while republicans get all room to ventilate their views.

Strange way of journalism.

Fleet 500

02-17-2005, 02:57 PM

And that's what we're arguing against RE: Fox News. Anyways, let's stick to that topic rather than your unrelated interludes. Back on topic...

Anyway, research is research. They found that 80% of people Fox interviewed were Republicans. It doesn't matter how biased or unbiased a person might be, those are still the facts. And without any shred of proof, you say that's not the fault of the network.

All tiny fragments of debate aside, where do you place your values on a larger scale? (out of curiosity) I mean, even the American left isn't really left-wing, so the arguments seem a little bit off anyway. What do you find wrong about liberal values?
Again, the figure is 80% because many liberals don't accept invitations to appear on Fox News. What can Fox News do if some liberals won't come on when invited?

What do I find wrong about liberal values?
First, and most important is national security. Every liberal U.S. president in the last 30 years has cut back on defense once he is in office. I consider the country's security to be the #1 concern. The primary job of a president is to protect the country. Clinton cut the military by 40%.

Typical liberals think there should be big social services for citizens. Services which cost taxpayers a lot of money. The conservative belief is that if people don't live off the government, they are more likely to help themselves which in the end is much better for them.

Typical liberals are soft on crime. This is one reason why, in many instances, a convicted criminal receives a "life" sentence, they are out in 10 or 16 years. And many times they murder again. The conservative way is much better- if those who are guilty of murder have no option for release, they can't go out on the street and murder again.

Typical liberals think taxes should be higher (especially the "rich"). In the real world, many who are defined as "rich" are a husband and wife who both work... the husband is something like a firefighter and the wife a business woman or professor. Their combined income classifys them as "rich" when they are anything but that. The tax rate in the U.S. in the early 1900s was 10-12% and the government operated fine. There simply is no reason for a 35 to 50% tax rate. The high tax rates actually harm the economy because the high wage earners put their money in tax-free investments and hold off hiring more employees.

Fleet 500

02-17-2005, 03:00 PM

It is not only that but there is also difference in the way Republicans and Democrats are being interviewed. The reporters/commentators are not interested in the Democrat view, they only want to confront them with their own opinions/"facts" and want them to comment on that. Democrats will always have to be on the defense, while republicans get all room to ventilate their views.

Strange way of journalism.
Quite the opposite... Fox is a new channel that lets BOTH sides' (Republicans and Democrats) views heard.
I watch Fox regularly, and they go out of their way to let Democrats voice their views and opinions- so people like you can't legitimately call them "unfair."

CdocZ

02-17-2005, 03:01 PM

ok, even tho im about to leave to new york city, i want to join this thread for a bit. what are your views (everyone hear) about the situation in israel? especially about how the news stations show it.

Fleet 500

02-17-2005, 03:02 PM

source of those numbers please.
The numbers are from reseach O'Reilly (and his staff did).
And before you say they can't be valid because it's O'Reilly, he's a ........ etc., provide the figures which dispute his and I'll listen.
Anyway, I'm not surprised at all abou the figures. It's well known that the mainstream media (TV and newspapers) are left-leaning.

Matra et Alpine

02-17-2005, 03:07 PM

It's well known that the mainstream media (TV and newspapers) are left-leaning.
....... of those on the extreme right :)

Sorry guys, but your political affiliations shine through on every post :)

crisis

02-17-2005, 03:31 PM

What do I find wrong about liberal values?
First, and most important is national security. Every liberal U.S. president in the last 30 years has cut back on defense once he is in office. I consider the country's security to be the #1 concern. The primary job of a president is to protect the country. Clinton cut the military by 40%.
You wouldnt need such a big military if the US didnt consider itself the worlds policeman. Maybe Clintons idea of protecting the country was based on diplomacy and seeking peaceful outcomes. And dont point out how he failed to respond to previous terrorist attacks. The difference is he didnt invade other countries to attempt to get them. Bush was at the helm when 9/11 happened and his reaction has not exactly ridded the world of terrorism.

Typical liberals think there should be big social services for citizens. Services which cost taxpayers a lot of money. The conservative belief is that if people don't live off the government, they are more likely to help themselves which in the end is much better for them.
Contrary to your belief that the primary role of the government is the contries security , I think that their role must include the welfare of the majority of its people. Letting people fend for themselves is great in thery, especially when you have a job and everthing is going to plan, but in a pure sense it is the law of the jungle. Civilisation has made us think about others and to be a bit benevolent.

Typical liberals are soft on crime. This is one reason why, in many instances, a convicted criminal receives a "life" sentence, they are out in 10 or 16 years. And many times they murder again. The conservative way is much better- if those who are guilty of murder have no option for release, they can't go out on the street and murder again.
That policy I have to agree with. Let the punishment fit the crime.

Typical liberals think taxes should be higher (especially the "rich"). In the real world, many who are defined as "rich" are a husband and wife who both work... the husband is something like a firefighter and the wife a business woman or professor. Their combined income classifys them as "rich" when they are anything but that. The tax rate in the U.S. in the early 1900s was 10-12% and the government operated fine. There simply is no reason for a 35 to 50% tax rate. The high tax rates actually harm the economy because the high wage earners put their money in tax-free investments and hold off hiring more employees.
Well both of our govenrments tax the living sh1t out of us.
There, what would you call me?

IBrake4Rainbows

02-17-2005, 06:34 PM

It improved from a negative number (it had been -1.4% in late '91 and early '92) and improved to a plus number. The 2.6% is the average for that year. It could be called improving when it goes up each or for each quarter. Like, for example, 1.3% for the first quarter, 1.5% for the second, 1.9% for the third, and 2.8% for the last. That's just an example.

Methinks it's not the same thing as you said before when you said the GDP was 2.6 the whole year.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-17-2005, 06:46 PM

Again, the figure is 80% because many liberals don't accept invitations to appear on Fox News. What can Fox News do if some liberals won't come on when invited?

Just because you invite them does not mean they will be welcome. A lot of Liberals (As you call them) won't show up or decline the invitation because they prefer not to get into a pointless slinging match with someone trying to change their views.

What do I find wrong about liberal values?
First, and most important is national security. Every liberal U.S. president in the last 30 years has cut back on defense once he is in office. I consider the country's security to be the #1 concern. The primary job of a president is to protect the country. Clinton cut the military by 40%.

Clinton cut the military because there was no major reason for the military to be so large, save for Kosovo. After 9/11 A lot of people signed up for the military, only to be screwed over in their belief that they were doing something good for their country.

Typical liberals think there should be big social services for citizens. Services which cost taxpayers a lot of money. The conservative belief is that if people don't live off the government, they are more likely to help themselves which in the end is much better for them.

So let me get this straight; good public hospitals, road infrastructure and transport etc. is people living off the government? they should be givens for living in a first world country, at the moment i'd rather get sick in Romania than the U.S.

Typical liberals are soft on crime. This is one reason why, in many instances, a convicted criminal receives a "life" sentence, they are out in 10 or 16 years. And many times they murder again. The conservative way is much better- if those who are guilty of murder have no option for release, they can't go out on the street and murder again.

Life sentences are given with parole periods, it's harldy fair to call the Judges, the same judges who are involved in these cases in both Republican and Democratic presidencies, to be biased when one or the other is in power.

Typical liberals think taxes should be higher (especially the "rich"). In the real world, many who are defined as "rich" are a husband and wife who both work... the husband is something like a firefighter and the wife a business woman or professor. Their combined income classifys them as "rich" when they are anything but that. The tax rate in the U.S. in the early 1900s was 10-12% and the government operated fine. There simply is no reason for a 35 to 50% tax rate. The high tax rates actually harm the economy because the high wage earners put their money in tax-free investments and hold off hiring more employees.

Tax rates are paid so those people can drive their car on a road without fear of having a wheel ripped off by a pothole. And what's with typical liberal anyway, thats like say a typical conservative wants nothing more than money, power and the world under their control; entirely untrue. and thats a worse case scenario; i'd be happy to pay more tax if i could take a bus to work rather than have to wait for 1/2 an hour for the next one to arrive. i'll give you an example:

I used to live in Wellington, New Zealand. Every morning i would wait at the bus stop for my bus, which cost me $1.50NZ (Around 95 Us cents, give or take) My entire family would bus to work, school, everywhere, because the buses were regular, on time, and looked after. The tax that my parents paid went to these infrastructures, including my mother who worked at the best hospital in New Zealand. If this (Looking after all citizens by making those who are comparitively well off pay a little extra) is being a liberal, then i really don't see the problem, other than the fact that big businesses have their profits cut into.

Fleet 500

02-17-2005, 10:18 PM

....... of those on the extreme right :)

Sorry guys, but your political affiliations shine through on every post :)
Then how would you explain that fact that liberal commentators far outweigh conservative commentators on the mainstream media?

Fleet 500

02-17-2005, 10:28 PM

You wouldnt need such a big military if the US didnt consider itself the worlds policeman. Maybe Clintons idea of protecting the country was based on diplomacy and seeking peaceful outcomes. And dont point out how he failed to respond to previous terrorist attacks. The difference is he didnt invade other countries to attempt to get them. Bush was at the helm when 9/11 happened and his reaction has not exactly ridded the world of terrorism.

Contrary to your belief that the primary role of the government is the contries security , I think that their role must include the welfare of the majority of its people. Letting people fend for themselves is great in thery, especially when you have a job and everthing is going to plan, but in a pure sense it is the law of the jungle. Civilisation has made us think about others and to be a bit benevolent.

Well both of our govenrments tax the living sh1t out of us.
There, what would you call me?
Do you think the U.S. didn't need a big just before WWII? One advantage of having a big military is that the other (hostile) countries know that the U.S. has a big military. Another advantage is that the military is prepared (unlike before WWII).
No, Clinton's policy was pacifism, which failed. During his terms, one terrorist attack after another occured and Clinton, in general, took the pacifist way out. As we found out, terrorism only got worse. Clinton had the chance (at least two times) to take Bin Laden into custody. If he would have been offered to Bush, he of course would have definitely taken him so he could be tried and punished.
We've been through this before- Iraq was invaded because that country violated 17 U.N. resolutions and because Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement. "Cease-fire" means it can resume if the other side does not obey the agreement, and Iraq/Saddam certainly did not.
Bush may not have ridded the world of terrorism, but look what has happened under his leadership:
- The Taliban in Afghanstan broken up; that country now free, its citizens (the children) are now enrolled in schools.
- 45 or 55 most-wanted terrorists in Iraq have been captured or killed.
- A murderous dictator (Saddam), ruling a country known as a haven for terroists, is removed and will stand trail. This same country (Iraq) is now free and elections were held for the first time in 25 years.

The welfare of the people is exactly what national defense means. That is the first priority of the U.S. government.
The government does not let people "fend for themselves." Conservatives believe the unnecessary hand-outs should be stopped.

The tax rate isn't that high in the U.S. (it averages around 35%).

Fleet 500

02-17-2005, 10:30 PM

Methinks it's not the same thing as you said before when you said the GDP was 2.6 the whole year.
You are correct- the average was 2.6% for the whole year. But, it is also reported for every month and every quarter.
When the GDP goes from a minus figure to a plus figure (like it did in 1992) it means the GDP is growing. And it started to do that before the '92 election.

Fleet 500

02-17-2005, 10:44 PM

Tax rates are paid so those people can drive their car on a road without fear of having a wheel ripped off by a pothole.
There is absolutely not reason for sky-high taxes. The government gets plenty with a 20% or so tax rate. As you probably know, much of the tax money is wasted and/or misdirected to where it's supposed to go.

As for the ratio of liberals/conservatives on Fox, you are wrong. If what you said is true ("the libs won't show up or decline invitation because they prefer not to get into a pointless slinging match with someone trying to change their views..."), then why do most of who do appear on Fox ask to be invited again?

Re: the military- it wasn't that large because Bush Sr. had already scaled it back after the '92 Gulf War. Clinton cut it too much. Those who signed up for the military were doing something good for the country (unless you call severely damaging the Taliban's terrorism capabilities, freeing Afghanistan and Iraq, and allowing for the people in those countries to vote not good for the country).

Hospitals are state-run, not govenment-run.

Obviously, it's the liberal judges who are much more likely to release convicts.

crisis

02-17-2005, 10:50 PM

Do you think the U.S. didn't need a big just before WWII? One advantage of having a big military is that the other (hostile) countries know that the U.S. has a big military. Another advantage is that the military is prepared (unlike before WWII)
Ever heard of the concept called the arms race? Its where countries try to build bigger militia than everyone else due to the fear the other will invade if theirs is bigger.
Then there was the mutual disarmament tha followed the cold war when both the US and Russia reduced the amount of warheads they both had.
Which one really makes you feel safer?
No, Clinton's policy was pacifism, which failed.
Pacifism failed. Well maybe in relation to terrorism but I feel it was not the only policy that contributed to ill feelings toward the US from the Middle East. I dont condone or support terrorists or terrorism but I dont really think Clintons pacifism made anyone shitty with you. It doesnt make sense.

During his terms, one terrorist attack after another occured and Clinton, in general, took the pacifist way out. As we found out, terrorism only got worse. Clinton had the chance (at least two times) to take Bin Laden into custody. If he would have been offered to Bush, he of course would have definitely taken him so he could be tried and punished.
Its all so easy in hindsite. No other US president ever went after a terrorist before, Arrafat for example, so it was not a line that was persued until now.
We've been through this before- Iraq was invaded because that country violated 17 U.N. resolutions and because Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement. "Cease-fire" means it can resume if the other side does not obey the agreement, and Iraq/Saddam certainly did not.
But plenty of other countries before Iraq have violated UN resolutions. The fact is a major changed happened after 9/11 which has meant the US is persuing a more aggressive line. WMD was one reason but also was the claim that Iraq harboured terorists. Afghanistan is another case where all out agression has not surpressed terrorism and in fact precipitated many more attacks. I dont think we should indulge terrorists. Im just saying that military spending al la your way of thinking does not neccessarily make you or the rest of us safer. It has more to do with foreign policy.
[QUOTE=Fleet 500]
The welfare of the people is exactly what national defense means. That is the first priority of the U.S. government.
The government does not let people "fend for themselves." Conservatives believe the unnecessary hand-outs should be stopped.

[QUOTE]
There is more to worry about than defending yourself form the outside world. Look at your economy for a start. Half of you military hardware would have never been used in combat.

Egg Nog

02-17-2005, 10:52 PM

Obviously, it's the liberal judges who are much more likely to release convicts.

And the conservative ones who put people in prison for 10 years for smoking marijuana.

I agree that in many cases these days, punishments are not harsh enough (particularly with murder and abuse/molestation cases), but you should realise that it goes both ways.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-17-2005, 11:29 PM

There is absolutely not reason for sky-high taxes. The government gets plenty with a 20% or so tax rate. As you probably know, much of the tax money is wasted and/or misdirected to where it's supposed to go.

Possibly, i'd like to see your information on where tax goes, including the way mr. Bush is taxing you.

As for the ratio of liberals/conservatives on Fox, you are wrong. If what you said is true ("the libs won't show up or decline invitation because they prefer not to get into a pointless slinging match with someone trying to change their views..."), then why do most of who do appear on Fox ask to be invited again?

again, wheres your information that they want to go through another wringing match where some dickhead with a microphone and a TV show can sprout off his opinion as fact?

Re: the military- it wasn't that large because Bush Sr. had already scaled it back after the '92 Gulf War. Clinton cut it too much. Those who signed up for the military were doing something good for the country (unless you severely damaging the Taliban's terrorism capabilities, freeing Afghanistan and Iraq, and allowing for the people in those countries to vote.

And now the Military is going through a personnel shortage, as people who have done their duty (We'll not get into the politics of why and how right now.) Kind of like the same thing that happened at the end of GW1, people just served their time, it's not the presidents fault they decided not to prolong their tenure.

Hospitals are state-run, not govenment-run.

And where do many states get their funding? Tax, as does the main government. So if your trying to blame the problems of the country on certain states, forget it. Hospitals are every governments problem.

Obviously, it's the liberal judges who are much more likely to release convicts.

How so obviously? because of your biased view of them being soft on crime? I am all for punishment that fits the crime, including the death penalty in extreme cases, but i fail to see how, in both Republican and Democratic run presidencies, such a bias can only be attributed to one of those periods of time.

It's foolish to think that anyone in their right mind likes paying tax, and i don't, but the way i see it is that if we can somehow improve the quality of life for everyone by making the roads better, getting better hospital care etc. then the whole countries happy. It's the selfish attitude that many have of "Why should i help out the government, when i can buy....." that creates so much hate in the world.

henk4

02-18-2005, 12:06 AM

Quite the opposite... Fox is a new channel that lets BOTH sides' (Republicans and Democrats) views heard.
I watch Fox regularly, and they go out of their way to let Democrats voice their views and opinions- so people like you can't legitimately call them "unfair."

Are you watching a different Fox than I do? Is the Hannity and Colmes show on the Fox version you see? Do I need o tell you more about the way mr. S. Hannity is talking to people who do not share his opinions? Are you then surprised that "liberals" refuse to speak to Fox?

Fleet 500

02-18-2005, 07:23 PM

Are you watching a different Fox than I do? Is the Hannity and Colmes show on the Fox version you see? Do I need o tell you more about the way mr. S. Hannity is talking to people who do not share his opinions? Are you then surprised that "liberals" refuse to speak to Fox?
Colmes also does that.
Hannity challenges people when they say things he believes are untrue or distorted. That's WHY it's called a debate show!
Many liberals have been on Fox (are YOU watching a different version than I)?

Fleet 500

02-18-2005, 07:26 PM

And the conservative ones who put people in prison for 10 years for smoking marijuana.

I agree that in many cases these days, punishments are not harsh enough (particularly with murder and abuse/molestation cases), but you should realise that it goes both ways.
People convicted for smoking marijuana are not put in prison for 10 years. More like one or two (or none at all in some cases).

I you agree the punishments are not harsh enough in some cases, then you are not a liberal. Congratulations!

Fleet 500

02-18-2005, 07:34 PM

Possibly, i'd like to see your information on where tax goes, including the way mr. Bush is taxing you.

again, wheres your information that they want to go through another wringing match where some dickhead with a microphone and a TV show can sprout off his opinion as fact?

And now the Military is going through a personnel shortage, as people who have done their duty (We'll not get into the politics of why and how right now.) Kind of like the same thing that happened at the end of GW1, people just served their time, it's not the presidents fault they decided not to prolong their tenure.

And where do many states get their funding? Tax, as does the main government. So if your trying to blame the problems of the country on certain states, forget it. Hospitals are every governments problem.

How so obviously? because of your biased view of them being soft on crime? I am all for punishment that fits the crime, including the death penalty in extreme cases, but i fail to see how, in both Republican and Democratic run presidencies, such a bias can only be attributed to one of those periods of time.[/QUOTE]

It's foolish to think that anyone in their right mind likes paying tax, and i don't, but the way i see it is that if we can somehow improve the quality of life for everyone by making the roads better, getting better hospital care etc. then the whole countries happy. It's the selfish attitude that many have of "Why should i help out the government, when i can buy....." that creates so much hate in the world.
Bush cut taxes twice.

Fact- the have been many liberal guests on Fox News (even though most of them don't make any sense!). No one forces them to show up or to debate with a Fox News commentator.

What personnel shortage in the military?

As I said, much funding is wasted. Everyone knows that.

Oh, so now, according to you, liberal judges are no longer soft on crime. That's a good one!

What about what I posted before... the tax rate was much less in the early part of the 20th century, yet the government had enough money to run things. The problem is not how much money the gov't gets in, it's that many times the gov't overspends. Giving the gov't more money by raising taxes won't help and it will stall the economy.

Fleet 500

02-18-2005, 07:53 PM

Ever heard of the concept called the arms race? Its where countries try to build bigger militia than everyone else due to the fear the other will invade if theirs is bigger.
Then there was the mutual disarmament tha followed the cold war when both the US and Russia reduced the amount of warheads they both had.
Which one really makes you feel safer?

Pacifism failed. Well maybe in relation to terrorism but I feel it was not the only policy that contributed to ill feelings toward the US from the Middle East. I dont condone or support terrorists or terrorism but I dont really think Clintons pacifism made anyone shitty with you. It doesnt make sense.

Its all so easy in hindsite. No other US president ever went after a terrorist before, Arrafat for example, so it was not a line that was persued until now.

But plenty of other countries before Iraq have violated UN resolutions. The fact is a major changed happened after 9/11 which has meant the US is persuing a more aggressive line. WMD was one reason but also was the claim that Iraq harboured terorists. Afghanistan is another case where all out agression has not surpressed terrorism and in fact precipitated many more attacks. I dont think we should indulge terrorists. Im just saying that military spending al la your way of thinking does not neccessarily make you or the rest of us safer. It has more to do with foreign policy.
[QUOTE=Fleet 500]
The welfare of the people is exactly what national defense means. That is the first priority of the U.S. government.
The government does not let people "fend for themselves." Conservatives believe the unnecessary hand-outs should be stopped.

[QUOTE]
There is more to worry about than defending yourself form the outside world. Look at your economy for a start. Half of you military hardware would have never been used in combat.
Sure, I remember the arms race. I lived through it. And, luckily, the U.S. won over the Soviet Union. The USSR said they were going to build nuclear weapons whether the U.S. liked it or not. So, Reagan said, "Okay, you want an arms race, you've got it." And the U.S. outbuilt the USSR. Not only did we end having a vastly superior military and arms, all of that spending bankrupted the USSR and that country fell apart- no more communist USSR- due, in part to the arms race. As a side note, pres. candidate John Kerry was, as usual, on the wrong side of history. During the build-up period, he wanted the U.S. to sign some crazy "nuclear freeze." Luckily, a real president (Reagan) was in office at the time).

But Clinton could have given more effort against terrorism. He treated the '93 World Trade Center bombing as crime instead of a terrorist attack. Instead of fighting terrorism, he did the opposite... he cut funding for the CIA and FBI. Defense Department consultant Laurie Mylroie warned Clinton just after '93 WTC bombing, "By responding to state-sponsored terrorism solely by arresting and trying individual perpetrators, the U.S. government, in effect, invites such states to commit acts of terror in such a way as to leave behind a few relatively minor figures to be arrested, tried and convicted."
Mylroie was right... other attacks would soon follow.
When presented with multiple opportunities to seize on of the world's most notorious terrorists- a known threat to the U.S., the Clinton administration chose not to act. And we're all paying the price now.

That's no excuse ("other countries before Iraq have violated U.N. resolutions"). Then why bother having resolutions if even the U.N. doesn't back them up? You are definitely correct about Iraq and Afghanistan harbored terrorists- but they don't now thanks to pres. Bush. Instead of terrorists, there are now 52 million people freed and real elections.

Egg Nog

02-18-2005, 07:57 PM

People convicted for smoking marijuana are not put in prison for 10 years. More like one or two (or none at all in some cases).

I you agree the punishments are not harsh enough in some cases, then you are not a liberal. Congratulations!

If you define liberal as "stupid", I can see why you don't like liberals. You think we're all the same. Of course liberals can like seeing murderers put away for good. We are in favour of the common good, and murder, quite obviously, goes against that. Being a liberal doesn't mean being a pansy, or being Mr. Nice Guy to every goddamn person on the planet.

Laws vary from state to state, but it's very possible to be put in jail for a marijuana offense for that long for possessing or selling as little as $20 worth of cannabis. A kid from Missouri started his 10-year sentence in 1998 when he was 17. He's in for selling 3.4 grams of pot. I met a woman downtown who is living in Vancouver with her Canadian boyfriend so that she doesn't have to return to the US. If she ever returns, she's facing 8 years for possesion without intent of trafficking.

Fleet 500

02-18-2005, 08:04 PM

If you define liberal as "stupid", I can see why you don't like liberals. You think we're all the same. Of course liberals can like seeing murderers put away for good. We are in favour of the common good, and murder, quite obviously, goes against that. Being a liberal doesn't mean being a pansy, or being Mr. Nice Guy to every goddamn person on the planet.

Laws vary from state to state, but it's very possible to be put in jail for a marijuana offense for that long for possessing or selling as little as $20 worth of cannabis. A kid from Missouri started his 10-year sentence in 1998 when he was 17. He's in for selling 3.4 grams of pot. I met a woman downtown who is living in Vancouver with her Canadian boyfriend so that she doesn't have to return to the US. If she ever returns, she's facing 8 years for possesion without intent of trafficking.
I didn't say the word "stupid." "Unenlightened" or "lack of common sense" is the phrase I would use. ;) I didn't say I don't like them; it's just that their ideology is completely wrong. Liberals can be great friends, but they are dangerous when they are in power.

Don't forget, a 10-year sentence is rarely actually that long (released early for "good behavior"). Of course, those people you mention could just stay away from marijuana and wouldn't have to worry about any jail time. Incidentally, I think those who sell marijuana should have strict punishment. Would you want your 16-year-old daughter using that junk- bought from some creep pushing that stuff to children?

Egg Nog

02-18-2005, 08:24 PM

I didn't say the word "stupid." "Unenlightened" or "lack of common sense" is the phrase I would use. ;) I didn't say I don't like them; it's just that their ideology is completely wrong. Liberals can be great friends, but they are dangerous when they are in power.

Don't forget, a 10-year sentence is rarely actually that long (released early for "good behavior"). Of course, those people you mention could just stay away from marijuana and wouldn't have to worry about any jail time. Incidentally, I think those who sell marijuana should have strict punishment. Would you want your 16-year-old daughter using that junk- bought from some creep pushing that stuff to children?

Pretty much everything you say here is just opinion-based, though. Things are always different based on different situations. "Junk - bought from some creep pushing stuff to children"? If the legality of the substance was changed, perhaps people who enjoy such a thing (similarly to alcohol) wouldn't need to worry about jail time for doing something that hasn't harmed anyone else. I would hope that a 16-year-old girl has been brought up well enough to be able to deal with something like that for herself, rather than trying to change the entire system as a whole to suit worried, paranoid, and overbearing parents.

At least try to see issues from both sides. Liberals would use the exact same "unenlightened" or "lack of common sense" phrases against Conservatives. It's just a different perspective, and if you can't acknowledge that, we're never going to get anywhere.

Fleet 500

02-18-2005, 09:00 PM

Pretty much everything you say here is just opinion-based, though. Things are always different based on different situations. "Junk - bought from some creep pushing stuff to children"? If the legality of the substance was changed, perhaps people who enjoy such a thing (similarly to alcohol) wouldn't need to worry about jail time for doing something that hasn't harmed anyone else. I would hope that a 16-year-old girl has been brought up well enough to be able to deal with something like that for herself, rather than trying to change the entire system as a whole to suit worried, paranoid, and overbearing parents.

At least try to see issues from both sides. Liberals would use the exact same "unenlightened" or "lack of common sense" phrases against Conservatives. It's just a different perspective, and if you can't acknowledge that, we're never going to get anywhere.
But I've posted a lot of facts which back up my opinions- like tax cuts help the economy and the government actually receives more tax revenues when taxes are cut than when they are raised. Or the fact that pacifism rarely leads to peace and never to freedom or security.

Why would you want to legalize an addictive substance? And before you bring up alcohol again, should we have two legal vices instead of just one? That's going backwards, I would say.
Even with good 16-year-olds, peer pressure can be hard to resist. Discouraging illegal drug use (and punishing criminals) is just as necessary as "hoping a 16-year-old has been brought up well enough..."

How are conservatives unenlightened or lacking in common sense? We conservatives believe in many things that have been shown to help the country- low taxes, small government, strict punishment for criminals, strong military, etc. Perhaps you should take a good, long look at liberalism- it doesn't work.

Egg Nog

02-18-2005, 09:36 PM

But I've posted a lot of facts which back up my opinions- like tax cuts help the economy and the government actually receives more tax revenues when taxes are cut than when they are raised. Or the fact that pacifism rarely leads to peace and never to freedom or security.

This is a very general thing to say... I will not agree or disagree with you. I hope you realise that being a Liberal doesn't mean that a person is against tax cuts, or even pacifism. Both sides of the political spectrum can absolutely not be reduced to simple terms. They are just too complex.

Why would you want to legalize an addictive substance? And before you bring up alcohol again, should we have two legal vices instead of just one? That's going backwards, I would say.
Even with good 16-year-olds, peer pressure can be hard to resist. Discouraging illegal drug use (and punishing criminals) is just as necessary as "hoping a 16-year-old has been brought up well enough..."

Marijuana is not addictive.

Why should we have two legal vices instead of one? No reason when you define it like that... a vice is a "act of moral corruption", and I agree that corruption, of course, is bad. The thing is, however (which is often the case with debates in general) that we're trying to argue with each other empirically, when we need to argue conceptually at first.

Alcohol is enjoyable to many humans. So are many other things. Where governments draw the line is very vague, and that's what should be argued. I would argue that alcohol allows more overall pleasure than it does overall damage, and that when it causes damage, it should be punished strictly, mostly to set an example. However, it should not be made illegal, because that would be removing an enjoyable activity from millions of people who would absolutely never use it for anything but responsible pleasure. Marijuana falls into a similar category. I would argue that humans in general enjoy being alive, and enjoy things that are pleasurable which do less harm than good. With many things, it's good to ask why they are illegal, rather than dismissing them because of illegality. Laws are not always justifiable, some to a greater extent than others. I will say that Liberalism encourages responsible freedom, this of course is an opinion, just like "liberalism doesn't work". And it is also highly conceptual, as are most arguments.

How are conservatives unenlightened or lacking in common sense? We conservatives believe in many things that have been shown to help the country- low taxes, small government, strict punishment for criminals, strong military, etc. Perhaps you should take a good, long look at liberalism- it doesn't work.

I won't even get started on this one, it's too large a topic to cover. It boils down to opinions and values which are radically different from person to person. There are many instances where forms of liberalism could work, but it really depends what you're talking about. It's hard to say outrightly that something can just "work", when everything is so massively complex and "liberalism" itself isn't even defined.

Fleet 500

02-18-2005, 10:45 PM

This is a very general thing to say... I will not agree or disagree with you. I hope you realise that being a Liberal doesn't mean that a person is against tax cuts, or even pacifism. Both sides of the political spectrum can absolutely not be reduced to simple terms. They are just too complex.

Marijuana is not addictive.

Why should we have two legal vices instead of one? No reason when you define it like that... a vice is a "act of moral corruption", and I agree that corruption, of course, is bad. The thing is, however (which is often the case with debates in general) that we're trying to argue with each other empirically, when we need to argue conceptually at first.

Alcohol is enjoyable to many humans. So are many other things. Where governments draw the line is very vague, and that's what should be argued. I would argue that alcohol allows more overall pleasure than it does overall damage, and that when it causes damage, it should be punished strictly, mostly to set an example. However, it should not be made illegal, because that would be removing an enjoyable activity from millions of people who would absolutely never use it for anything but responsible pleasure. Marijuana falls into a similar category. I would argue that humans in general enjoy being alive, and enjoy things that are pleasurable which do less harm than good. With many things, it's good to ask why they are illegal, rather than dismissing them because of illegality. Laws are not always justifiable, some to a greater extent than others. I will say that Liberalism encourages responsible freedom, this of course is an opinion, just like "liberalism doesn't work". And it is also highly conceptual, as are most arguments.

I won't even get started on this one, it's too large a topic to cover. It boils down to opinions and values which are radically different from person to person. There are many instances where forms of liberalism could work, but it really depends what you're talking about. It's hard to say outrightly that something can just "work", when everything is so massively complex and "liberalism" itself isn't even defined.
In general, liberals favor those things I mentioned (high taxes, big gov't, etc).

Marijuana is a mind-altering drug. Traces of it stay in the fatty area of the brain stem for months after use. Marijuana also frequently leads to other, more dangerous drugs.
A quote from Joe Friday from Dragnet... "9 times out of 10 when when we arrest a youth holding cocaine he has marijuana on him. I judge weed by the company it keeps."
Marijuana, especially when it has lead to other harder drugs, has ruined many lives. A study done some years ago showed that it took until the 40th person question who was on hard drugs who did not start with marijuana.

"Enjoyable?!?" Getting stoned and acting stupid while under the influence is "enjoyable?" I would suggest volleyball, soccer, hiking, basketball, tennis, whatever rather than stupid marijuna. I've said a few times before to other people that the smartest and the thing I'm most proud of I've done in my life was to stay far away from illegal drugs.

Remember, too, that many companies these days require a drug test before hiring. No problem for me there!

Repeat: "Liberalism doesn't work." It's been tried in Canada and Britain (in the '70s IIRC) and it failed. It was tried in the U.S. in the late '70s (pres. Carter) and failed, too. (Super-high interest rates, high unemployment, high inflation.)

henk4

02-19-2005, 02:47 AM

Colmes also does that.
Hannity challenges people when they say things he believes are untrue or distorted. That's WHY it's called a debate show!
Many liberals have been on Fox (are YOU watching a different version than I)?

Colmes hardly gets a chance to speak when Hannity is ranting on. Also saw Hannity interviewing GWB. How tame he was then.

Matra et Alpine

02-19-2005, 01:41 PM

Then how would you explain that fact that liberal commentators far outweigh conservative commentators on the mainstream media?
because you confuse supporting a cause and being 'fair'.
You see every questioning of a Presidents actions as an unpatriotic act and the hounding of plans to use taxes to improve 'society' as reasonable investigation.
That's why you only watch FOX :)

You label every commentator who doesn't support your views as liberal - it's plain from you posts. So by your definition there are more liberal commentators. It's your definition that's wrong :) IF you viewed more world news you may get a better understanding of what ubiased, fair reportign is. Sadly American TV doesn't go out of it's way to broadcast international channels. I see French and German news as well as "European" ( an unusual amalgam :) ) and the sycophantic SKY and even the BBC ( who 'extended' one of the best in-depth news programs by 15 minutes to discusss a royal wedding !!!! WTF )

So it might help if you describe the attributes of a 'liberal' commentator and also explain all the other types that are possible. Maybe it will help you and certainly will calrify for the reader !!!

Matra et Alpine

02-19-2005, 01:58 PM

Bush cut taxes twice.
It's easy to cut taxes by matching spend with borrowings.
Hence why the deficit is getting larger and causeing aguish on the stock markets.
See http://traxel.com/deficit/ for an excellent analysis of the deficit, taxation dollar and GDP. See http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage-50-years.png ( it's just too big to display here )> The interesting point is that the bars at the bottom reflect the polotical affiliations of the President, the house and the senate. See the ones coloured for GWB !!!!
As I said, yep he made all his rich friends ahppy with less taxes, but SOMEONE will have to pay for it. Iraq cost the American tax-payer and the beneficiaryies are the large corporations and stock-holders of those who build arms and who will rebuidl the infrastructure. That is NOT the strugging family with 2 kids working their way through college with 2 jobs. PRIORITIES :(
What about what I posted before... the tax rate was much less in the early part of the 20th century, yet the government had enough money to run things. The problem is not how much money the gov't gets in, it's that many times the gov't overspends. Giving the gov't more money by raising taxes won't help and it will stall the economy.
The literacy has increased.
The survival age has increased.
More attain higher education and better jobs.
Unemployment became somethign we were aware needed a caring and suportive attitude and not just left to die.
These need an investment that can only come from central government action. If not, then only rich Manhattans could afford to have their kids in junior grade school :) Families would have parents and grandparents staying with them. The only medical support woudl have been the local vet who covered as a dentist too.
Comparing 1900s taxation as a number is fine, Fleet, but you really have to compare quality of life as well.

Matra et Alpine

02-19-2005, 02:08 PM

But I've posted a lot of facts which back up my opinions- like tax cuts help the economy and the government actually receives more tax revenues when taxes are cut than when they are raised.
OK, explain that.
I think you mean DIRECT taxation - and let indirect increase to balance the budget ( or are we somehow adding borrowings into the sum somewqhere ? )
Or the fact that pacifism rarely leads to peace and never to freedom or security.
Funny, it's been moving along a peaceful route in Ireland since we managed to stop Americans funding the IRA.

Here's one to throw in the melting pot of FOX-attitudes.

What do they report about the Kyoto agreement ? The handful of countries who have NOT signed it or the 142 who have ? That America has 4% of the world population and 25% of the emissions ?

Here's doozy from a face-the-politicians debate last night on BBC.
Last years in France a heatwave which has been attributed to global warming causign the winds shift KILLED 3000 French citizens. So global emissions have already caused a "9/11" equivalent deaths and yet America doesn't wish to climb on that white horse and charge to find resolution. No, Bush thinks it will damage the economy. Double standards. Same number of people wre filled in France because of global warming. Would it be acceptabel for nations to rise up against the worst polluters who are not signing to reduce emissions and invade their country, imprison company directors of major companies with no right to see a lawyer or speak to anyone ? If one act is used to justify one "action" can't the lack of signing to Kyoto be use to justify and "equal" action ? BTW< Japan is already 10%AHEAD of the required emissions cuts agreed in Kyoto, so Bush scare-mongering about the figures was a wave of a hand :(

SupraMan22

02-19-2005, 02:15 PM

matra et alpine, you are the problem solver and the peace keeper. god bless you. lol :)

Fleet 500

02-19-2005, 02:49 PM

Colmes hardly gets a chance to speak when Hannity is ranting on. Also saw Hannity interviewing GWB. How tame he was then.
I've seen Colmes get plenty of time to respond.
And I'm sure Colmes would have been tame when interviewing Clinton.

Fleet 500

02-19-2005, 03:06 PM

OK, explain that.
I think you mean DIRECT taxation - and let indirect increase to balance the budget ( or are we somehow adding borrowings into the sum somewqhere ? )

Funny, it's been moving along a peaceful route in Ireland since we managed to stop Americans funding the IRA.

Here's one to throw in the melting pot of FOX-attitudes.

What do they report about the Kyoto agreement ? The handful of countries who have NOT signed it or the 142 who have ? That America has 4% of the world population and 25% of the emissions ?
Would it be acceptabel for nations to rise up against the worst polluters who are not signing to reduce emissions and invade their country, imprison company directors of major companies with no right to see a lawyer or speak to anyone ? If one act is used to justify one "action" can't the lack of signing to Kyoto be use to justify and "equal" action ? BTW< Japan is already 10%AHEAD of the required emissions cuts agreed in Kyoto, so Bush scare-mongering about the figures was a wave of a hand :(
Cutting taxes helps the economy and actually increases revenue for the government. For instance, look at Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980s... the result... in 1979, those who were earning over $200,000/year were paying a total of $250.3 billion in taxes; by 1989, the amount was 412.9 billion. Also, contrary to the myth that the "rich paid less in taxes under Reagan," in 1979, the highest 5% were paying 37.6% in taxes; by 1989 it was 43.6%. (Source: Information Please Almanac, 1991, page 75.) Overall, the U.S. gov't collected $320 billion in revenues in 1981 and 354.4 billion in 1989.

What about all of those bombings that were happening regularly in Ireland?

Why should the U.S. (and Australia) sign a treaty for something which has not been proved? (See graph below- from the World Climate Review, University of Virginia. Using 1890 as a base year, computer model developed at geophysical fluid dynamics laboratory, Princeton, N.J., graph by Lincoln Studios.)

Fleet 500

02-19-2005, 03:12 PM

It's easy to cut taxes by matching spend with borrowings.
Hence why the deficit is getting larger and causeing aguish on the stock markets.

As I said, yep he made all his rich friends ahppy with less taxes, but SOMEONE will have to pay for it. Iraq cost the American tax-payer and the beneficiaryies are the large corporations and stock-holders of those who build arms and who will rebuidl the infrastructure. That is NOT the strugging family with 2 kids working their way through college with 2 jobs. PRIORITIES :(

You cannot give complete credit or discredit to only the president because every economic policy and proposition must pass through Congress.
After the Republican-written balanced budget passed (after Clinton finally signed it after refusing two times) the deficit went down. It is going up today because of the war on terrorism and the huge financial impact of 9/11.

See my other post about the "rich." They pay way more than there share of taxes. When the rich are taxed too much, it hurts the economy because the government gets less revenue. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of taxes; the top 20% pay 80% of taxes. Also, most of the rich have earned their wealth- that should be brought up, too.

Egg Nog

02-19-2005, 03:24 PM

In general, liberals favor those things I mentioned (high taxes, big gov't, etc).

You must be pretty confused if you think liberals "favour high taxes". if you want to know what we think, it's probably best to look at the ends rather than the means.

A quote from Joe Friday from Dragnet... "9 times out of 10 when when we arrest a youth holding cocaine he has marijuana on him. I judge weed by the company it keeps."
Marijuana, especially when it has lead to other harder drugs, has ruined many lives. A study done some years ago showed that it took until the 40th person question who was on hard drugs who did not start with marijuana.

They also probably started with alcohol. That's the first psychoactive substance that most people use. The only reason marijuana is used in surveys like that is because it is the most common illegal substance. Using cocaine statistics is irrelevent - it's only logical that someone using hard drugs has done lighter drugs before. That's why hard drugs should always be illegal. If marijuana was made legal, do you think there would be any less cocaine being done? Anyone stupid enough to do cocaine isn't the type of person who would have originally "passed on grass" just because of it's illegality.

Larry Campbell used to be Vancouver's coroner. He's seen absolutely everything that you could possibly imagine relating to substance abuse and otherwise. He is now our mayor, and (despite having never used it) he's expressed before that marijuana should be legalized . Not only does this allow more freedom to people who use it safely and recreationally for personal pleasure, but it frees up a lot more police authority to focus on the more difficult problems. Problems with hard drugs need to be dealt with first and foremost.

"Enjoyable?!?" Getting stoned and acting stupid while under the influence is "enjoyable?" I would suggest volleyball, soccer, hiking, basketball, tennis, whatever rather than stupid marijuna. I've said a few times before to other people that the smartest and the thing I'm most proud of I've done in my life was to stay far away from illegal drugs.

Each to his own. Nobody is critisizing you for doing your own thing. However, if you ask a person who uses marijuana, you'll find that they do find it enjoyable. That, quite obviously, is the reason behind doing it. People should play sports? Of course! Human beings find entertainment in many different forms. Volleyball is one, television is another, and for some people, alcohol/marijuana is another.

Remember, too, that many companies these days require a drug test before hiring. No problem for me there!

Of course! If you don't want to involve yourself in such things, you shouldn't have to. The entire cocept that if being stressed is "freedom", within reason of safety, of course. Hence the concept of where do draw the line. The biggest issue with substances is addiction. It makes sense to ban any sold product that is known to be physically addictive.

Repeat: "Liberalism doesn't work." It's been tried in Canada and Britain (in the '70s IIRC) and it failed. It was tried in the U.S. in the late '70s (pres. Carter) and failed, too. (Super-high interest rates, high unemployment, high inflation.)

Once again, letting pure opinions shine through. Since you're saying "failed", you cannot possibly be arguing empirically.

Liberalism failed in Canada in the 70s? Under who? Pierre Trudeau is remembered as one of the greatest prime ministers of all time. He hardly failed at any aspect. Of did you mean the 1960s? Lester Pearson (Canadian PM) created the entire idea of peacekeepers, allowing for the resolve of the suez canal crisis. I don't know what on earth you're talking about. Of course "Liberalism doesn't work" is an opinion. It's assumed that you'll say that, by the definition of your conservatism.

Matra et Alpine

02-19-2005, 03:28 PM

Cutting taxes helps the economy and actually increases revenue for the government. For instance, look at Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980s... the result... in 1979, those who were earning over $200,000/year were paying a total of $250.3 billion in taxes; by 1989, the amount was 412.9 billion.
Struggling with the concept of inflation then :)
Do it on a year for year comparison.
take 2004 and show me how CUTTING tax would have raised revenue ?
The economics of expansionist gain are over.
It died out 30 years ago !!!
What about all of those bombings that were happening regularly in Ireland? The ones funded by NORAID collections ?
They weren't just happening in Northern Ireland they were on mainland Britain too.
For a while in the 60s and 70s Britain tried the "GWB approach" and went in heavy-handed, imprisoned innocent people for their political affiliations - some of whom died in hunger strikes in protest. Repalced the legitimate police force with an armed force protected in compunds built in housing estates and on the border surreounded by 10 feet fences, rocket proof buildings and helicopters flying troops in and out.
We learned a lesson back then that you cannot defeat terrorism you can only do so by finding the common ground and trying to build a peace, not enforce it.
There are still those who wish to fight to "win" a solution but thankfully they are becoming more and more side-lined and those who trully want peace are being given their chance.
If we do not learn lessons from history then wer are doomed to repeat them

Why should the U.S. (and Australia) sign a treaty for something which has not been proved? (See graph below- from the World Climate Review, University of Virginia. Using 1890 as a base year, computer model developed at geophysical fluid dynamics laboratory, Princeton, N.J., graph by Lincoln Studios.)
"World Climate Review" Would that be the journal that was quoted on thus ..... "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by [the coal producer and electricity co-op] Western Fuels".
Good independant source.
The whole point about Kyoto was it made nations do SOMETHING. Debating that it's not enough and so we shoudlnt' bother was a pthetic stance taken by some who wre more concerned that it would increase tax and/or fuel costs in the US at the same time as the deficit was being used to back-fill expenditure.
Go cite some less biased references.
NO credible source says that climate change is NOT happening.
Whether we can stop it is the BIG issue.
That that gets used as a pathetic excuse for not trying is pitiful :(

Fleet 500

02-19-2005, 05:51 PM

You must be pretty confused if you think liberals "favour high taxes". if you want to know what we think, it's probably best to look at the ends rather than the means.

They also probably started with alcohol. That's the first psychoactive substance that most people use. The only reason marijuana is used in surveys like that is because it is the most common illegal substance. Using cocaine statistics is irrelevent - it's only logical that someone using hard drugs has done lighter drugs before. That's why hard drugs should always be illegal. If marijuana was made legal, do you think there would be any less cocaine being done? Anyone stupid enough to do cocaine isn't the type of person who would have originally "passed on grass" just because of it's illegality.

Larry Campbell used to be Vancouver's coroner. He's seen absolutely everything that you could possibly imagine relating to substance abuse and otherwise. He is now our mayor, and (despite having never used it) he's expressed before that marijuana should be legalized .

Each to his own. Nobody is critisizing you for doing your own thing. However, if you ask a person who uses marijuana, you'll find that they do find it enjoyable. That, quite obviously, is the reason behind doing it. People should play sports? Of course! Human beings find entertainment in many different forms. Volleyball is one, television is another, and for some people, alcohol/marijuana is another.

Liberalism failed in Canada in the 70s? Under who? Pierre Trudeau is remembered as one of the greatest prime ministers of all time. He hardly failed at any aspect. Of did you mean the 1960s? Lester Pearson (Canadian PM) created the entire idea of peacekeepers, allowing for the resolve of the suez canal crisis. I don't know what on earth you're talking about. Of course "Liberalism doesn't work" is an opinion. It's assumed that you'll say that, by the definition of your conservatism.
If liberals don't favor high taxes, why is it them who proposes tax hikes?

Nope, alcohol would have been mentioned in that study. Many started with marijuana because it was easier to obtain (and hide) than alcohol. Like in schools... easy for one student to give another student a marijuana cigarette.

Yeah, great, legalize marijuana. That's all we need... a nation (or nations) full of pot-heads! As for different forms of entertainment, volleyball and TV doesn't harm the body; volleyball and other sports makes someone more fit, unlike marijuana.

Re: Canada... I'll look into it. There was a time when liberalism has been tried in several countries, including the ones I mentioned and the economy always got worse. No big surprise- liberalizing the economy will only harm it.

Fleet 500

02-19-2005, 06:01 PM

Struggling with the concept of inflation then :)
Do it on a year for year comparison.
take 2004 and show me how CUTTING tax would have raised revenue ?
The economics of expansionist gain are over.
It died out 30 years ago !!!
The ones funded by NORAID collections ?
They weren't just happening in Northern Ireland they were on mainland Britain too.
For a while in the 60s and 70s Britain tried the "GWB approach" and went in heavy-handed, imprisoned innocent people for their political affiliations - some of whom died in hunger strikes in protest. Repalced the legitimate police force with an armed force protected in compunds built in housing estates and on the border surreounded by 10 feet fences, rocket proof buildings and helicopters flying troops in and out.
We learned a lesson back then that you cannot defeat terrorism you can only do so by finding the common ground and trying to build a peace, not enforce it.
There are still those who wish to fight to "win" a solution but thankfully they are becoming more and more side-lined and those who trully want peace are being given their chance.
If we do not learn lessons from history then wer are doomed to repeat them

"World Climate Review" Would that be the journal that was quoted on thus ..... "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by [the coal producer and electricity co-op] Western Fuels".
Good independant source.
The whole point about Kyoto was it made nations do SOMETHING. Debating that it's not enough and so we shoudlnt' bother was a pthetic stance taken by some who wre more concerned that it would increase tax and/or fuel costs in the US at the same time as the deficit was being used to back-fill expenditure.
Go cite some less biased references.
NO credible source says that climate change is NOT happening.
Whether we can stop it is the BIG issue.
That that gets used as a pathetic excuse for not trying is pitiful :(
I'll check again, but I believe those figures are adjusted for inflation (they generally are).
Again, cutting taxes increases revenue for the government because the general population spends more when they are taxed less. More spending=more sales tax. Also, with tax cuts, big businesses with be more likely to expand and hire more employees. Force these businesses to pay more in taxes and they just invest their money in tax-free shelters and they won't hire more people. This hurts the country and the working-class.

We HAVE to defeat terrorism, especially these days. There is no other choice- too dangerous to let them be a threat as was found out on 9/11.

It was more than one source/study which came up with the results. And, as you can see from the graph, the projected warming was set much higher than the actual.
Again, why was the earth warmer in 1000 A.D. (when there was no man-made pollution) than it is today? Answer- it's a natural cycle.
No credible source can prove "global warming," or prove it is caused by man. The 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruptions put out more pollutants than all of the cars on the earth combined. We can't stop natural like volcanoes, cows, naturally-caused forest fires, etc. (I'm sure you heard about how much carbon dioxide cows emit)... impossible.

Matra et Alpine

02-19-2005, 07:06 PM

Again, cutting taxes increases revenue for the government because the general population spends more when they are taxed less. More spending=more sales tax.
Too simplistic as that model assumes all disposible income is spent on goods.
MUCH of a disposable income is spent on services which is a spiral which eats into the simple models maths.
High spending fuels inflation.
That is why governments use interest rates to control spending.
In creasing DIRECT taxatiion can be matched with a reduction in indirect taxation which increases spending. IT makes a BIGGER difference as sales tax is an ordinately higher tax on poorer familes. So the rich benefit more, the rich spend the money on non-constructive items in a society. There is a law of diminishing returns in macro-economics. Setting a standard of tax revenue to GDP ratio and borrowing are widely held to be the cornerstoen of national economic structures. Problems is some forget and use borrowing to avoid the pain today ( knowing they'll be out of office in 8 years time ) !!
Also, with tax cuts, big businesses with be more likely to expand and hire more employees. Force these businesses to pay more in taxes and they just invest their money in tax-free shelters and they won't hire more people. This hurts the country and the working-class.
That only works in an expansionist economy. NONE of "first world" nations are in that economic cycle. In multinational businesses at the beck of share holders the business will invest where it gets maximum return, so call centres go off-shore. Software development goes off-shore. Advanced electronic design goes off-shore. The "first world" nations are now running predominatly SERVICE economies and the old ideas of fiscal growth that worked in the 50s and 60s just don't hold sway any more. THEN governments are forced to bolster the local industry with tax incentives, loans, etc. Increasing borrowing or tax are the only ways to do that. You can't borrow forever :(
We HAVE to defeat terrorism, especially these days. There is no other choice- too dangerous to let them be a threat as was found out on 9/11.
There were as many French people killed in last years freak heatwave.
Will you support "no other choice" actions for those deaths ??
I don't see GWB calling for everyoen to unite against the worst polluters and Emissions of Global Destrucion - guess EGD is 2 more letters in the alphabet he'd have to learn and wold tire him out :)
It was more than one source/study which came up with the results. And, as you can see from the graph, the projected warming was set much higher than the actual.
You've not responded to the FACT that the report is from a biased organisation.
So, 2 things, the graphs is a nonsense as nobody was predicting the temperature for today 1000 yearsa ago. So picking that point and making and up-and-to-the-right graph is meaningless.
Second. As is often cited in academic papers, some scare-mongering is achieved - admittedly on both sides of this argument - by picking WHICH date in history we wish to start from.
HOWEVER< the MAIN issue is the rate of temperature cahnge is an order of magnitude HIGHER today than it has ever been. During the last major tempreature change which was 14,000 years ago when the planet came out of the last ice age. Back then it took 5000 years to increase by 5 degrees. In the last 100 years it has increased 0.5 degrees and is generally agreed that it will rise 2 to 3 over the next 100 if we do nothing. THAT is exceeding what the planet's natural cycles show it capable of handling.
You can't play poker with nature, it doesn't bluff !!!
We get it wrong, we destroy it for MANY generations.
Again, why was the earth warmer in 1000 A.D. (when there was no man-made pollution) than it is today? Answer- it's a natural cycle.
No credible source can prove "global warming," or prove it is caused by man.
CO2 emissions,
CFCs destroying the Ozone.
No2 emissions destroying forests and acidifying lakes.
Excuse me, but what desert are you sticking your head in ?
The challenge is "proof". As the planet is not a closed system it is impossibel to prove to 100%. But to 95% there is loads and I'm shocked to read a grown adult in an educated environmetn profess to ignore the evidence.
Atrocious and a condemnation of your educational system !!!
The 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruptions put out more pollutants than all of the cars on the earth combined. We can't stop natural like volcanoes, cows, naturally-caused forest fires, etc. (I'm sure you heard about how much carbon dioxide cows emit)... impossible.
So just because you saw someone run over and kill a kid yesterday you don't mind doing 80mph past a school as it empties ?
AMAZING :(
You ARE correct that we cannot stop natural events.
BUT nobody has said we should try. What we SHOULD do is limit the "footprint" we leave as damage on the earth and it's environs.
We have HARD evidence that shows a SCIENTIFIC link between emissions, ozone depletion, co2 heat trapping and the increase in sea temperature ( which is a MUCH bigger concern than a city temp ). We can MEASURE the earlier flowering of plants as they respond to the gentler clime.
You make the child-like mistake of thinking that one small thing doesn't matter.
Tiem to read the story of the straw and the camels back laddie :)

SupraMan22

02-19-2005, 08:01 PM

Fleet you can't argue with him. He's like the super genius of UCP. I'm wondering if he's a computer. He sure knows a damn lot.

Fleet 500

02-19-2005, 10:33 PM

Fleet you can't argue with him. He's like the super genius of UCP. I'm wondering if he's a computer. He sure knows a damn lot.
Yeah, a "genius" who happens to be wrong. ;)

Fleet 500

02-19-2005, 10:47 PM

Too simplistic as that model assumes all disposible income is spent on goods.

There were as many French people killed in last years freak heatwave.
Will you support "no other choice" actions for those deaths ??

You've not responded to the FACT that the report is from a biased organisation.
HOWEVER< the MAIN issue is the rate of temperature cahnge is an order of magnitude HIGHER today than it has ever been. During the last major tempreature change which was 14,000 years ago when the planet came out of the last ice age.

You ARE correct that we cannot stop natural events.
BUT nobody has said we should try. What we SHOULD do is limit the "footprint" we leave as damage on the earth and it's environs.
We have HARD evidence that shows a SCIENTIFIC link between emissions, ozone depletion, co2 heat trapping and the increase in sea temperature ( which is a MUCH bigger concern than a city temp ).
It may be "simplistic," but it's true.

And there were a lot of people killed in blizzards and cold waves. What's your point?

Again, it was info collected from more than one source. And it's obvious the projected temperature of the earth was way off.

The last ice age was 10,000-11,000 years ago, not 14,000 (Meteorology/Climatology is one of my interests).

Why do you single out Bush? China emits more pollution per year than the U.S. Also, the U.S. has probably the most strict anti-pollution regulations of any country. Open the hood on a car in the U.S. and look at all of the anti-smog devices on it. Even in the '70s, cars imported from Europe or wherever had to have these anti-smog devices installed to be legal. In other words, the U.S. was already fighting air pollution well before most other countries.

The link you mention regarding emmissions is practically all done by natural events. As I said, one large (or even moderate) volcano eruption pollutes more than all of the cars in the world. Even if there were no cars and no industry, pollution would occur- and the natural events are the main contributer to pollution.

Fleet 500

02-19-2005, 11:04 PM

I don't see GWB calling for everyoen to unite against the worst polluters and Emissions of Global Destrucion - guess EGD is 2 more letters in the alphabet he'd have to learn and wold tire him out :)

Your remark about Bush makes me think of a letter printed in the L.A. Times on Feb. 1, 2005:
"Let's see, a Yale degree, a master's from Havard, a fighter pilot, twice elected governor, twice elected president of the United States, democracy to Afghanistan, disposed of a savage dictator in Iraq, a free election in Iraq, the hope of democracy to those without. What would he be capable of if he weren't so stupid?"
- Jerry Andersen, Pacific Palisades, Calif.

It seems that Bush has had the last laugh because it turns out that we now all know who the ones who are really stupid (the ones that call Bush that name). :D

Fleet 500

02-19-2005, 11:11 PM

Matra et Alpine

02-20-2005, 07:16 AM

It may be "simplistic," but it's true.
So ALL disposable income is spent on goods ?
Hmm, so waht about all the cash in banks and share desposits ?
What about all the lawyer fees, doctor fees, dentist fees ?
What about insurance ?
Do you actually know the differnce between goods and services ?
Do you have an inkling of how they alter the GDP of a nation ? How they are used to make GDP LOOK better by inclduing services along with manufacturing ?
You should go read beyond page 2 of the "dummies guide to economics" before talking drivel !!!
And there were a lot of people killed in blizzards and cold waves. What's your point?
Clearly missed by you. and yet everyoen else who reads it likely understood.
So let me repeat. A HEATWAVE, a freak heatwave, triggered by SOMETHING. Records showed that the wind patterns have shifted. A prime example of an unusual weather pattern as predicted by climate change. IN REALITY there is MORE evidence on that being caused by our damage to the climate system then GWB had on 9/11 being "I-RAQ" :( THAT was the point. Same number of deaths, attributable contributory cause and GWB refuses to sign the Kyoto aggreement which will lesson the likelihood of these events worsening. Again, PLEASE, try to be objective and realise the difference of approach and ask yourself why !!!
Again, it was info collected from more than one source. And it's obvious the projected temperature of the earth was way off.
You're ignoring the point on the projection being irrelevatn when applied historically. THAT is deliberate manipulation of the climate change model. They retrofitted todays estimates onto a graph going back 1000 yeras. You cant' do that and most high school kids know that - this is a great one in classroom discussions on independant thought for kids !!
The last ice age was 10,000-11,000 years ago, not 14,000 (Meteorology/Climatology is one of my interests).
Go cread what I had written and check your facts.
The last ice age was 14,000 years ago and LASTED 5,000 years - AS I HAD WRITTEN.
What a dickhead :)
"interest" clearly doesn't include "understanding" then !!!
OR BOTTHERING TO ACTUALLY READ ANYTHING WRITTEN.
Man you're getting annoying (AGAIN) !!
Plwease STFU until you show you've actually read what is writte.
This is the prime evidence that you shoudl review. EVERYOEN else can see you didnt' think this through and are replying in "knee-jerk". So less knee and less jerk and we might be ablt to identify the REAL issues.
Why do you single out Bush?
Because he is applying double standards.
he is allowing business presures to prevent him from taking SOME action on pollution.
China emits more pollution per year than the U.S.
China is a 3rd world state - in terms of technologies - with a larger population and growing a HUGE industrial base, They are going through the growth cycle Britain did in the Victorian era and America did in the 30-50s.
This is one of the BIG issues in the Kyoto agrement. That 'emerging" states are NOT as heavily limited as 'stable' and that a trade in emissions is allowed.
Britain, France, America, et al ALL built a successful economy on pure growth and NO regard for the consequences of pollution or emissions. To some anti-Jyoto states, it is that 3rd world groups are limited is THEIR gripe. We benfitted withotu worrying what we did to the poanet so should they. Not acceptable, so Kyoto tried to control both sides.
Beijing now has the largest fleet of low-pollution natrual gas powered busses in the WORLD. Beijing MANDATED that city vehicles must convert to natural gas - one of the (small) advantages of a communist state :)
They ARE taking actions as tey open their borders and realise that isolationist communism isn't best for their future.
So there are historical reason why TODAY China is bad, but that doesn't mean America shouldn't do SOMETHING in the intnerational agreement drawn up in Kyoto - the CIA's own page on the US states "the US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels; water pollution from runoff of pesticides and fertilizers; limited natural fresh water resources in much of the western part of the country require careful management; desertification "
Sometimees GWB shoudl listen to those "advisers" the same organisation that told him about WMDs is telling him about pollution ( that's from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html btw :) )

You're talking abotu a nation of 1.2BILLION peopl, of course they will produce more pollution than 300MILLION Americans ( or 60Million Brits )
Also, the U.S. has probably the most strict anti-pollution regulations of any country. Open the hood on a car in the U.S. and look at all of the anti-smog devices on it. Even in the '70s, cars imported from Europe or wherever had to have these anti-smog devices installed to be legal. In other words, the U.S. was already fighting air pollution well before most other countries.
Jsut a correction, in EUROPE we were moving forward on lean-burn engines and were achieving similar emission levels to the catalytic converter which the US Anti-smog laws made mandatary !!
So it's not all about the right science :(
We used less gas to travel the same distances and moved people and goods by trains.
So or cars were NOT our number one polluter and we didnt' have the MAJOR issues in LA basin - which was THE major factor in forcing a change to reduce car emission. Jsut as the London SMOG was the major reason why Britain enforced a smokeless fuel limtation on home heating.
Please consider ALL the factors and not jump on one justification. It was a LOT more than just you had and we didn't :)
The link you mention regarding emmissions is practically all done by natural events. As I said, one large (or even moderate) volcano eruption pollutes more than all of the cars in the world. Even if there were no cars and no industry, pollution would occur- and the natural events are the main contributer to pollution.
You really do believe that last part don't you :(
PLEASE go and read about the impact on ozone and the chemical reactions of CFC gasses !!
Find out about the physical properties of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and how it can change the climate.
TRY to avoid the hysteria ( from both sides ) and make your own mind up.
You cannot stop a volcano - you can stop the cars and industry pollutants.
Why chose NOT to ? Again if the straw and the camels back doesnt' work then read it in the original feather and horse story of Irish Archibishop Bramhall in 1655 !!!!! I'm sure a google woudl find it for you. TRY to grasp the meaning and understand that we need to act till it hurst. So saying taxes woudl have to be higher, or air conditioning only used to drop the temperature to 80 or heating only to increase it to 60 - each of those would make a difference. A government can LEAD, sadly by refusing to acknowledge Kyoto America is losing credibility. If it continues then IF it worsens and we have to all tighten harder I hope at theat time the US will be required to pay-BACK what it chose NOT to do in these coming years !!
As stated, Japan is ALREADY 10% ahead of it's Kyoto agreement target. So I dont' accept any BS about industry beign damaged or people not accepting it. Japan is more industrialised than any of us !!! Thankfully their main religions recognise the need for harmony and balance :)

Matra et Alpine

02-20-2005, 07:30 AM

Matra, check out...
http://www.junkscience.com

And these:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2319.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1346489,00.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1188
OK, so the last one first - it's a paper by Michaels again, we've already proven HIS lack of credibility !!

second last one was good British reporrting at it's best, did you read beyond the headline that google found for you ? it goes on to say that other reports are SUPPORTING it :) ( generally using google to try to be smart doesnt' work well. I't best if it's studied and discussed so all points are understood before citing :) )

second one, shame again, read on , record number of storms !! bad example of another google to try to prove a point. DID you notice that some states were WARMER> One of the biggest mistakes made with climate is taking the reported increase in GLOBAL temparature and then saying it can't be true because a region was cooler. Regional temperatures are affected by a numebr of issues, soem cliamte chage causes different patteresn of high pressure areas which alters winds/currents which can increase or decrease temperature dependant on how it moves. Prime example is the warm gulfstream water that comes UP the Atlantic and strikes the West coast of Scotland. THAT gives us temperate weather. WHEN we have a HIGH pressure are sit over us for a while the gulfstream surfaces earlier and increases water tempereature and increases HIGH levesl of rainfall. ( I used to date a geophysicist :) ) SO, let me cite from the actual report you just gave the sumamry of "Below average summer precipitation occurred in many areas of the West, where drought has persisted for much of the past four to five years. The drier-than-average conditions, along with warmer-than-normal temperatures in the West, exacerbated the long-term drought conditions in some locations"

and finally we come to the first link.
THAT is brilliant :) I almost peed myself laughing.
AGAIN, you woudl have doen well to have researched a little deeper.
The 2 links on that page are provide by .... wait for it .... ... ta-ra ..... FOX News :) One up for biased reporting then :) Oh see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147995,00.html it's where Fox tell you it's there counter. BANG goes objectivity on EVERY SINGLE link you posted.

Man go back in the play-pen and read your John and Jane books. Being out in the big world is clearly too taxing ( no pun intended :) )

Can I perhaps clam --- OWNED

Matra et Alpine

02-20-2005, 07:35 AM

It seems that Bush has had the last laugh because it turns out that we now all know who the ones who are really stupid (the ones that call Bush that name). :D
From Broxburn daily Bugle ( first published 20/2/05 ) ...

"Bush is a w@nker". Orrr Wullie, hero of the people for 60 years.

Nah, we got the last laugh Fleet.

Citing a letter BY a republican isnt' really objective is it.

Also, you confuse stupidity and malicious act ( whcih I consider stupid for any leader to perform )

SlickHolden

02-20-2005, 08:15 AM

DAM! i cant belive this is still going :D

Matra et Alpine

02-20-2005, 08:19 AM

I know we shoudl ahve pulled it off into it's own thread abotu 10 pages ago :)

But it's fun :)

For anyeon interested, here's the British governments take on the whoel climate issue with plenty of references and more detailed anlysis in it too -- http://www.citizenspace.co.uk/consultations/2005/DLB_QCT_SAG_000005/quickconsult and click on the "fact bank" button.

nice to see a government that tries to listen to it's people :)

PS: If we're NOT affecting the weather then WHY last year did we get the FIRST EVER HURRICANE in the South Atlantic ?? http://www.met-office.gov.uk/sec2/sec2cyclone/catarina.html

The British Met Office is one of the highly regarded institutes on weather - http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/index.html is their climate research group.

spi-ti-tout

02-20-2005, 08:20 AM

Your remark about Bush makes me think of a letter printed in the L.A. Times on Feb. 1, 2005:
"Let's see, a Yale degree, a master's from Havard, a fighter pilot, twice elected governor, twice elected president of the United States, democracy to Afghanistan, disposed of a savage dictator in Iraq, a free election in Iraq, the hope of democracy to those without. What would he be capable of if he weren't so stupid?"
- Jerry Andersen, Pacific Palisades, Calif.

It seems that Bush has had the last laugh because it turns out that we now all know who the ones who are really stupid (the ones that call Bush that name). :D
Oh yeah..I forgot about all his degrees :rolleyes:

I suggest you read the first page of this thread:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8541&page=10&pp=15&highlight=Criminal+Record

SlickHolden

02-20-2005, 08:29 AM

Fleet 500

02-20-2005, 01:42 PM

From Broxburn daily Bugle ( first published 20/2/05 ) ...

"Bush is a w@nker". Orrr Wullie, hero of the people for 60 years.

Nah, we got the last laugh Fleet.

Citing a letter BY a republican isnt' really objective is it.

Also, you confuse stupidity and malicious act ( whcih I consider stupid for any leader to perform )
No, Bush still has the last laugh because people like you underestimate him.

Fleet 500

02-20-2005, 01:43 PM

greenhouse gases the US is worst for that yeah.

When i hear about Climate Change i think the day after tommorrow is comming for real.
The problem Matra has is that there just as many scientists who don't believe there really is global warming than those who believe it.

Fleet 500

02-20-2005, 01:50 PM

PS: If we're NOT affecting the weather then WHY last year did we get the FIRST EVER HURRICANE in the South Atlantic ??

And I suppose it has been proven that this hurricane has been positively linked to "global warming?"

Why, did the dust bowl era of the '30s, in which many mid-western U.S. states had their highest temperatures ever (around 120 degrees) occur then and not recently? Was there "global warming" back in the '30s, too? :rolleyes:

Fleet 500

02-20-2005, 03:21 PM

Matra,
Stop nitpicking.
I meant that the last time period of the ice age was about 11,000 years ago. True, I should have mentioned how long it lasted, but it's like when you're answering someone's question about a job. If I worked at a job from 1988 to 1995, I would say I worked at that job in 1995, meaning that's when I was there last- just like the ice age, it was still going on 11,000 years ago.

Regarding warming and cooling, the earth has a built-in safety valve- the oceans and the vegetation. The oceans absorb excess carbon dioxide.
Also, there is the cycle of the ice age. East of Greenland, the North Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Sea are separated by relatively shallow water. This keeps the colder water in the Arctic Sea out of the N. Atlantic Ocean. If the earth warmed by a noticable amount, the glaciers would melt and the sea level water would rise. This would mean (because of the northward-trending Gulf Stream) more warmer water would flow into the Arctic Ocean. This warmer water would increase the precipitation in the form of snow. The greater snowfall would reflect more sunlight which would cause a cooling of the polar regions. So, another ice age would occur. This, of course, would take thousands of years.

Here is an interesting map of the land area covered in the ice age...

Matra et Alpine

02-20-2005, 03:41 PM

Matra,
Stop nitpicking.
Go back and read YOUR words, Fleet.
You tried to be a smart arse and sound soooo clever :)
I gave you the numbers where you coudl have worked out it was the SAME time, but rather than THINK about a post you had a knee-jerk reaction and posted nonsense. As I said less knee and less jerk please !!
IF you keep it factual then it's best.
Regarding warming and cooling, the earth has a built-in safety valve- the oceans and the vegetation.
Sorry, but you really need to go and read wider.
You DO realise that the largest piece of ice EVER broke away in the Antartic ? That it is already leading to the mass migration of penguins and their likely death because of the change in the availabel food ?
The problem with safety valves is that if you use it, it's a one-off !
WHY take the risk ? Other than to line the pockets of multinational oil companies ?
The oceans absorb excess carbon dioxide.
Not at any significatn change as the surface are for the osmosis is unchanged. So you cannot KNOW it will take on more. Simple chestry suggests it won't. Also as the CO2 leve increases in the water the oxygen level drops. Guess what plankton die, fish die !! Very naive science to assume that the earth will absorb it all.
THAT is the point of Kyoto it was to say we must STARTon a cycle of REDUCTION.
Also, there is the cycle of the ice age. East of Greenland, the North Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Sea are separated by relatively shallow water. This keeps the colder water in the Arctic Sea out of the N. Atlantic Ocean. If the earth warmed by a noticable amount, the glaciers would melt and the sea level water would rise. This would mean (because of the northward-trending Gulf Stream) more warmer water would flow into the Arctic Ocean.
Too somplistic. It is unknown the precise changes water currents would take as different channels will open up. THIS is why there is strogn debate abotu the REAL consequences. There are many what-ifs. If only 10% of the possibillties are the destruction of our climate then we shoudl act, Or do you think otherwise ? Does it have to be 100% proven fact of climate change before we act ? Because by the time you coudl prove it 100% then it will be too late. Read up on mathematical chaos theory which underpins most of the modern analysis of major systems. Chaotic systems have a tendency to flip, go from one stable state to a widely different stable state VERY quickly.
This warmer water would increase the precipitation in the form of snow. The greater snowfall would reflect more sunlight which would cause a cooling of the polar regions. So, another ice age would occur. This, of course, would take thousands of years.
ahem, warmer water will also mean warmer land and warmer land means LESS snowfall and LESS snow lying. In night the sea warms the land, in day, the land warms the surrounding sea coastal waters.
Can you please explain the model you are using to say warmer water increases SNOW ? Warmer water in the presence of low pressure areas increases evaporation assuming the air is warm enough to absorb it. Taking ONE aspect of a closed system doesn't mean the rest fall into line. Please explain or give a link on that one.
Here is an interesting map of the land area covered in the ice age...
Irrelevant ! Please read further, the ice age was a natural shift of climate in a gradual manner. 5000 YEARS. What is happening today is climate change in an order of magnitude quicker. It is folly to say what happened at a time when most of the land was vegetation and few animals and trying to make ANY statement about today when our cities being concrete reflect most of the UV straight back UP that would have been absorbed by plants.
Explain how we can extrapolate from a 11000 year old map and conditions onto today ?

Matra et Alpine

02-20-2005, 03:43 PM

The problem Matra has is that there just as many scientists who don't believe there really is global warming than those who believe it.
Did you bother to go to the UK Met Centre link I gave.

There are NOT an equal number on each, HOWEVER, there are some very well funded and vocal groups and a large body of undecided. how many does it take for action to be taken ? As I said, Bush took the world to war on less credible evidence and you defend THAT !!!!! Hypocrisy is bad :(

Egg Nog

02-20-2005, 03:47 PM

BC's forests are being destroyed by the mountain pine beetle, as they never have been before. Why? Sudden temperature increase, far above anything that has ever occured in the natural cycle. Not enough pine beetles being killed off to keep the population at bay. Forest areas totally around 3/4 the size of Sweden (and growing) have been overtaken by the beetles, and will die off within the next 3-5 years.

Watch for a steady increase in global lumber prices. This is an upcoming hardcore economic and environmental disaster.

I'd like to see what proof you have to offer that "there are just as many scientists who don't believe there really is global warming than those who believe it".

Of course there is no irrevokable single proof for any one issue (or any one group of people to blame) with something so widespread and indirect. You have to look at the fact that all these problems are beginning to occur at around the same time.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-globalwarming.htm

CdocZ

02-20-2005, 04:09 PM

wooooow. my question, something like 3 or 4 pages ago was very ignored.
i repeat: what are your views on the situation in israel? not just one of you, all of you

Fleet 500

02-20-2005, 05:48 PM

Go back and read YOUR words, Fleet.
You tried to be a smart arse and sound soooo clever :)
I gave you the numbers where you coudl have worked out it was the SAME time, but rather than THINK about a post you had a knee-jerk reaction and posted nonsense. As I said less knee and less jerk please !!
IF you keep it factual then it's best.

Sorry, but you really need to go and read wider.
You DO realise that the largest piece of ice EVER broke away in the Antartic ? That it is already leading to the mass migration of penguins and their likely death because of the change in the availabel food ?
The problem with safety valves is that if you use it, it's a one-off !
WHY take the risk ? Other than to line the pockets of multinational oil companies ?

THAT is the point of Kyoto it was to say we must STARTon a cycle of REDUCTION.

Too somplistic. It is unknown the precise changes water currents would take as different channels will open up. THIS is why there is strogn debate abotu the REAL consequences. There are many what-ifs. If only 10% of the possibillties are the destruction of our climate then we shoudl act, Or do you think otherwise ? Does it have to be 100% proven fact of climate change before we act ? Because by the time you coudl prove it 100% then it will be too late. Read up on mathematical chaos theory which underpins most of the modern analysis of major systems. Chaotic systems have a tendency to flip, go from one stable state to a widely different stable state VERY quickly.

ahem, warmer water will also mean warmer land and warmer land means LESS snowfall and LESS snow lying. In night the sea warms the land, in day, the land warms the surrounding sea coastal waters.
Can you please explain the model you are using to say warmer water increases SNOW ? Warmer water in the presence of low pressure areas increases evaporation assuming the air is warm enough to absorb it. Taking ONE aspect of a closed system doesn't mean the rest fall into line. Please explain or give a link on that one.

Irrelevant ! Please read further, the ice age was a natural shift of climate in a gradual manner. 5000 YEARS. What is happening today is climate change in an order of magnitude quicker. It is folly to say what happened at a time when most of the land was vegetation and few animals and trying to make ANY statement about today when our cities being concrete reflect most of the UV straight back UP that would have been absorbed by plants.
Explain how we can extrapolate from a 11000 year old map and conditions onto today ?
"Simplistic!" "Irrelevent!"
Hey, calm down, Bud. You sure get excited- I'm glad you're not my boss at work (I like to be around easy-going, mellow people).
I only posted that ice age map because we were discussing the subject and I came across the book it was in.

The process I explained above (the cycle of the ice age) has been known for many years.
You do mean the largest piece of ice ever broke away from the Antarctic in recorded history, right? How do you know that there hasn't been larger pieces that have broken away which were unobserved?

Regarding the Kyoto treaty... the U.S. already has very strict emission laws. And why should the U.S. sign a treaty for something that has not been proven? (You still cannot claim that global warming either exists or if it does is caused by man.) As I said, the world temperature was higher in the year 1000 A.D. than it is now. How can that be? You would think with all of the industry and motor vehicles, it would be higher today.

Obviously, warmer water and air produces more rain (or snow in the Arctic regions). If more snow is produced than is melted, the glaciers in the Arctic move southward, like they did in the ice age. The land they overrun causes that land to be cooler (because of increased reflection of the sun).

You sound like one of those "doom and gloom" liberals. The same kind who, in the '70s, said the earth is cooling and we would soon be entering another ice age. Remember that? I do. Now, "global warming" will be popular until the "cooling" theory pops up again!

Fleet 500

02-20-2005, 08:06 PM

BC's forests are being destroyed by the mountain pine beetle, as they never have been before. Why? Sudden temperature increase, far above anything that has ever occured in the natural cycle. Not enough pine beetles being killed off to keep the population at bay. Forest areas totally around 3/4 the size of Sweden (and growing) have been overtaken by the beetles, and will die off within the next 3-5 years.

I'd like to see what proof you have to offer that "there are just as many scientists who don't believe there really is global warming than those who believe it".

Of course there is no irrevokable single proof for any one issue (or any one group of people to blame) with something so widespread and indirect. You have to look at the fact that all these problems are beginning to occur at around the same time.

Changes like you describe have been happening to the earth for millions of years, and they will continue regardless of whether man is here or not.

Just do some research and you'll see strong cases on both sides. However, I disagree with those who say "global warming is a fact for sure and it's caused by man for sure." It's not for sure and not one scientist has presented positive proof just like you said.

CdocZ

02-20-2005, 08:21 PM

people, answer my question. dam. is it that hard? i mean, its on topic with this discussion, political stuff. i just want to bring this discussion to a different area for a bit. then you can start bickering.......again.......about if invading iraq or a bunch of other things were right. the israel thing IS a major issue also.

Egg Nog

02-20-2005, 10:18 PM

Changes like you describe have been happening to the earth for millions of years, and they will continue regardless of whether man is here or not.

Just do some research and you'll see strong cases on both sides. However, I disagree with those who say "global warming is a fact for sure and it's caused by man for sure." It's not for sure and not one scientist has presented positive proof just like you said.

Of course nobody can absolutely prove either side of the argument to be true or false. I've heard both sides before, but I definitely haven't seen (from personal experience) just as many scientists on both sides of he argument as you said earlier. Do you have any backing to this claim?

From what I've researched, scientists are unaware of anything like the Mountain Pine Beetle issue happening throughout history. The levels of annual temperature increase are apperently quite a lot higher than ever before on a natural scale. This, of course, is part of the evidence that people are dealing with.

Many things are still impossible to irrefutably prove the existence of. Take plate tectonics - there is a massive amount of evidence in favour of it, but there are still people who have their own theories. As evidence continues to build with environmental issues, we should at least be more wary of problems. The largest difference between now and the '70s "global cooling" claims are that now we're actually seeing many things we can relate to theories in a more concrete way.

Also, of course, it's a much more widely-known an accepted idea than "global cooling" ever was, and more scientifically-driven as opposed to the crazy doomsayer-driven as before. Maybe it's because people were doing far more LSD back in the '70s than people are doing now, or maybe not. ;) The point is, everything is connected, so while finding definite sources isn't going to get us anywhere, we have to look at general patterns that shift alongside others.

spi-ti-tout

02-21-2005, 02:49 AM

No, Bush still has the last laugh because people like you underestimate him.
Well c'mon Fleet...did you even bother to click that link I gave you?

spi-ti-tout

02-21-2005, 02:50 AM

SlickHolden

02-21-2005, 04:27 AM

I don't think anyone underestimates anything that George Bush does:p He try's to Hollywood the hole tuff guy talk :D He might be a backwards Ronald Reagan. President first actor after :D

crisis

02-21-2005, 04:34 AM

Then why bother having resolutions if even the U.N. doesn't back them up?.
Backing them doesnt neccessarily mean invading the transgressing country.

You are definitely correct about Iraq and Afghanistan harbored terrorists- but they don't now thanks to pres. Bush. Instead of terrorists, there are now 52 million people freed and real elections.
Im sorry, Iraq and Afghanistan dont harbour terrorists now?! Seen any good car bombings lately? I think 100 died in Iraq the other day.

SlickHolden

02-21-2005, 04:42 AM

I didnt see bush with a gun in iraq lol:D Iran probley harbor more terrorist's.

I think George Dubya doesn't respect the UN he doesnt have to answer to anyone:)

spi-ti-tout

02-21-2005, 05:26 AM

Im sorry, Iraq and Afghanistan dont harbour terrorists now?! Seen any good car bombings lately? I think 100 died in Iraq the other day.
Yeah not to mention the time almost 200 people were killed in that car bombing which was meant to murder Syed Mehdi Al Hakim. Fleet, wasn't that AFTER the invasion of Iraq?

CdocZ

02-21-2005, 07:17 AM

ok.........bush has done a few good things. there is no doubt about that. i dont really agree entirely on the war, i think it should have been considered ALOT more, and more thoughtfully planned out. the persian gulf war (the first one) was won so incredibly easily because we didnt just stick troops in asap. we tried to destroy the enemy's support first (radar, and related things). then we just annihilated them. look whats happening here! we stuck troops in right away, basically LET the reporters tell them where we are, and then we wonder why war was harder earlier on, and then why the insurgents are doing so well? the army that stops moving is gonna get raped, and to stop that, we need to have more of a directed offensive against the insurgents.

btw, definitly the STUPIDEST idea that thank god didnt go through, that bush had........the mars space program. if they got that through..........well, that would just help quantify how many retarded rednecks are are in the country :p

spi-ti-tout

02-21-2005, 07:38 AM

CdocZ

02-21-2005, 08:10 AM

forza_autodelta

02-21-2005, 08:30 AM

i'm not a gt40 fan,I prefer cobra daytona

spi-ti-tout

02-21-2005, 10:39 AM

what part of that wasnt too smart? a moving army always wins. unless the enemy knows where you are all the time, but i dont think iraq and the insurgents have too many sattelites. and the thing about taking away their support? thats true too, an enemy that cant see, is gonna be helpless. how is that not smart?
EDIT: its all true. think about it. what do you do when you cant see? also, look at boxers, or other fighters. do they just stand in one place? no, the move around while they throw their punches.
CdocZ, I never said anything was not 'smart'. :)
You have to understand me. The ONLY problem is that people debating in this thread have already come to that thought. The fact that you continue to repeat it again and again, and try to disrupt an effortfull conversation full of opposition and thought, does not harbour the feeling of getting near anywhere of that person. :(

I don't mean any offence when I said that, I was just trying to imply that if you want to debate you have to be with the times.

CdocZ

02-21-2005, 11:46 AM

CdocZ, I never said anything was not 'smart'. :)
You have to understand me. The ONLY problem is that people debating in this thread have already come to that thought. The fact that you continue to repeat it again and again, and try to disrupt an effortfull conversation full of opposition and thought, does not harbour the feeling of getting near anywhere of that person. :(

I don't mean any offence when I said that, I was just trying to imply that if you want to debate you have to be with the times.
oooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh. lol. now it makes sense. i understand what you mean. im just "partially" joining, and stating my opinion at the time so people know where i stand, so if i make an unclear comment, they can understand what view im coming from.

forza_autodelta

02-21-2005, 12:07 PM

oulà 47 pages==> there's a gap sorry

Matra et Alpine

02-21-2005, 01:13 PM

You do mean the largest piece of ice ever broke away from the Antarctic in recorded history, right? How do you know that there hasn't been larger pieces that have broken away which were unobserved?
Do YOU realise that the antartic is THE most surveyed part of natural earth on the planet ? They know almost every ice retreat in antartic for thte last 5000 years by usign core samples drilled from the shelf. THOSE are used as one of the main pointers to climate change in the world as they are a near perfect picture of Co2, o2, ozone, temperature change etc
"unobserved" yeah, right :)
That's a depserate clutch at a straw !!!
Regarding the Kyoto treaty... the U.S. already has very strict emission laws. And why should the U.S. sign a treaty for something that has not been proven? (You still cannot claim that global warming either exists or if it does is caused by man.) As I said, the world temperature was higher in the year 1000 A.D. than it is now. How can that be? You would think with all of the industry and motor vehicles, it would be higher today.

Look at the mean temperature and you get the REAL story.
Picking ONE sample and ignoring trend is bad science - and often used in 'rebuking' climate chanve theories. So take the highest temp in a year aroudn 1000ad and the lowest temp in a year around 2000 and you CAN say it was warmer in 1000ad. BUT that isnt' the whole picture as you will see if you look at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jones2004/fig5.jpg ( sorry I woudl have posted it inline so everyoen can see the MEAN temperature INCREASE and the steady rise since we became 'industrilaised'.)
Can you please give me a citation on the MEAN temparatures that say it was on average warmer in the 10C than it is tin the 20th ??
Obviously, warmer water and air produces more rain (or snow in the Arctic regions). If more snow is produced than is melted, the glaciers in the Arctic move southward, like they did in the ice age. The land they overrun causes that land to be cooler (because of increased reflection of the sun).
And where do you think all that melting water goes to ?
And as the seas rise the current flows alter and the basic mechanism that moderates the temperature of the planet is disrupted. Again to return to scientific FACT, this is the largest area of dispute. Some say it will be catastropghic, some say it waill change dramatically, some say the Earth will "heal itself" and that the new flows will have a stable environment ( some people also believe in the tooth fairy :) )
You're taking one thing at a time and forgetting that they all interact. Same approach that many 'debunkers' try on the warnings over climate changs. It's bad science and logic :(
You sound like one of those "doom and gloom" liberals.I'm NOT a "doom and gloom" BUT I am NOT going to kid on that by ignorign it it wil go away by its own :)
I'm also not a "liberal" - another American bastardisation of the English language - at times I've been Socialist, Nationalist and even Conservative as I've grasped the nuances of politics and world events and availabel politicians to support :) Saying Liberal is pointless, these are SCINETIFIC issues and shoudl be devoid of political allegiance - soemthign a certain leader has issues grasping. At least Blair has got some balls over this - as well as debt.
The same kind who, in the '70s, said the earth is cooling and we would soon be entering another ice age. Remember that? I do. Now, "global warming" will be popular until the "cooling" theory pops up again!
That's the usual mistake that the media have made over the years when they've wanted to grab headlines. If all you read is that typoe of press/tv then it's understandable you are confused.
What climatologists have been saying for over 40 years is that we are changing the earths climate. The outcome of that change will be extremes in temperature which would drive the planet into an ice age.
One possible outcome of global warming IS a direct ice age. Changing weather pattersn can adjust the warming seas away from the northern most land and the arctic flows grow. ( see my comments WAY back on Scotland's weather and the warmign of the Gulf Stream we enjoy ) You're confusing the events and the timing of the events.
ANOTHER possible outcome is the ultimate loss of 1/3 of the current land as the ice melts that land does't absorb heat from the sun and so the evening temperaatures drop more severly. THAT drop means that mean temperature will DROP and that means that ice will start to reform and on a massive scale. It is the MEAN temperature that is the issue with climate change.

I think you fall into the trap laid by the skeptics that by taking each individual event and saying that we dont' agree means tghat all shoudl be abandoned. Bad science. You wouldn't have a telephone or a computer OR a car if scientists had followed that kind of logic over the last 200 years !!

YES. It is not possible to say what will happen with certainty.
BUT, it MUST be acknowledgeed that under it's OWN control the earth has done pretty well for itself over the last few million years. It is the FACT that we can measure OUR influence that we must take care. The Earth formed to be stable by "laws of nature" ( or God if you wish ) and WE are chainging the formula that it runs by. To think it can cope with OUR manipulation is poor logic based on it having 'coped' in the past. And as chaos theory grew in the last 10 years we've come to quantify and understand the REAL RISK involved in a major system like a planet ecosystem getting unbalanced. Some of the skeptics even refute the concepts of chaos theory in bids to rubbish warnings of possibel climate change.

For a large part of the planet to ignore this while others take action is rather unfair as we won't have the chance to get them to pay their fair share once it's too late. If only there was a way to fine in the afterlife :(

Egg Nog

02-21-2005, 09:50 PM

Yeah, great, legalize marijuana. That's all we need... a nation (or nations) full of pot-heads! As for different forms of entertainment, volleyball and TV doesn't harm the body; volleyball and other sports makes someone more fit, unlike marijuana.

Take a look at the Netherlands, if you want a real-life case study. Legal marijuana, no more drug issues than anywhere else in the developed world, and the highest average IQ in all of Europe. Best of all, they've succeeded while simultaneously giving people more freedom to do as they please without harming others. And of course, rather than money going to "criminals", it's going to the government.

No big surprise- liberalizing the economy will only harm it.

Major economic players in North America are generally conservative, and as you know, the market is usually driven by optimism or fear, a la post-September 11th. It only makes sense than Conservative governments will do a "better" job with the economy, but it's rarely the people that are winning out. Privitization, outsourcing, corporate tax breaks, etc. The main priority with conservative governments tends to be the economy. Liberals do not place economic growth nearly as high on the list - that's one of the main differences between the right and left wing.

Fleet 500

02-21-2005, 09:55 PM

Well c'mon Fleet...did you even bother to click that link I gave you?
I did. And it is full of inaccuries. Obviously, many people have no idea what they are talking about.

Myth- Joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL.
Fact- Received an honorable discharge (as 2nd Lt.). Recently released his full military record (which Kerry has not)- no AWOL on record. This same record shows that he did make up hours for time he missed- in fact he put in slightly more than necessary.

Myth- Set the record for vacations.
Fact- Practically all of them are working vacations. And, speaking of records, Clinton set the record for largest presidential entourage. His visit to China in June, 1998 involved an entourage of 1,200 people. They included 200 secret service agents, 150 military personnel, 30 senior delegates, 375 reporters, 4 TV crews, 150 support staff and 70 senior advisers. In comparison, when Nixon visited China in 1972, he was accompanied by only 300 people.

Myth- In the state of the Union Address, he lied about reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed Britain.
Fact- He went by information supplied to him. Going by info you are given is not "lying." The supposed Uranium headed toward Iraq WAS from faulty British intelligence.

Myth- In my first year in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
Fact- The 9/11 attacks caused a loss of 1.3 million jobs, much of the other job loses were from the recession which Bush inherited. In the last 18 or so months, jobs have increased every month. Claiming the trend is continuing every month is an outright lie.

Myth- I have presided over the highest gasoline prices in history.
Fact- Of which a president has little control over. Besides, I thought Bush had Iraq invaded to "take over their oil." When does that happend? I'm still waiting!

Myth- I am the first president in history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and a military invasion of a sovereign nation.
Fact- What? A sovereign nation with a brutal, murerous dictator would be more accurate. Bush resumed military action because Iraq had broken the cease-fire agreement (many times) and broke 17 U.N. resolutions. Clinton ordered bombings in several countries during his terms without U.N. or Congressional approval.

Comparing Bush with Clinton-
Clinton knew about Saddam's evil regime and took no effective action to stop it. He appeased a dangerous dictator and America (and the world) paid dearly for his neglect to face terrorism.
Bush, on the other hand, has shown courage and strength against terrorism/the Iraqi regime.

People like you are criticizing the wrong president!

jcp123

02-21-2005, 11:40 PM

Dang, this got off topic. I like Cadillacs.

henk4

02-21-2005, 11:46 PM

Take a look at the Netherlands, if you want a real-life case study. Legal marijuana, no more drug issues than anywhere else in the developed world, and the highest average IQ in all of Europe.

It could have even been higher if I had been a drug user :D

Matra et Alpine

02-22-2005, 08:38 AM

It could have even been higher if I had been a drug user :D
The average would have been higher if you hadn't had Wouter :)

SlickHolden

02-22-2005, 08:58 AM

Say NO to drugs:D

NAZCA C2

02-22-2005, 11:47 AM

this has to be the most off topic a thread has ever become.

Matra et Alpine

02-22-2005, 02:34 PM

Stingray's are one of my favourite lookers.
Thanks to Wouter for the new entry in UCP - http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car.php&carnum=93

CdocZ

02-22-2005, 02:59 PM

its gotta be the '69 stingray. its just.........i dunno, does "godly" work as an adjective? :p

Fleet 500

02-22-2005, 07:11 PM

Do YOU realise that the antartic is THE most surveyed part of natural earth on the planet ? They know almost every ice retreat in antartic for thte last 5000 years by usign core samples drilled from the shelf.

Look at the mean temperature and you get the REAL story.
Picking ONE sample and ignoring trend is bad science - and often used in 'rebuking' climate chanve theories. So take the highest temp in a year aroudn 1000ad and the lowest temp in a year around 2000 and you CAN say it was warmer in 1000ad. BUT that isnt' the whole picture as you will see if you look at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jones2004/fig5.jpg ( sorry I woudl have posted it inline so everyoen can see the MEAN temperature INCREASE and the steady rise since we became 'industrilaised'.)
Can you please give me a citation on the MEAN temparatures that say it was on average warmer in the 10C than it is tin the 20th ??

And where do you think all that melting water goes to ?
And as the seas rise the current flows alter and the basic mechanism that moderates the temperature of the planet is disrupted. Again to return to scientific FACT, this is the largest area of dispute. Some say it will be catastropghic, some say it waill change dramatically, some say the Earth will "heal itself" and that the new flows will have a stable environment ( some people also believe in the tooth fairy :) )

I'm NOT a "doom and gloom" BUT I am NOT going to kid on that by ignorign it it wil go away by its own :)
I'm also not a "liberal" - another American bastardisation of the English language - at times I've been Socialist, Nationalist and even Conservative as I've grasped the nuances of politics and world events and availabel politicians to support :) Saying Liberal is pointless, these are SCINETIFIC issues and shoudl be devoid of political allegiance - soemthign a certain leader has issues grasping. At least Blair has got some balls over this - as well as debt.

What climatologists have been saying for over 40 years is that we are changing the earths climate. The outcome of that change will be extremes in temperature which would drive the planet into an ice age.
One possible outcome of global warming IS a direct ice age. Changing weather pattersn can adjust the warming seas away from the northern most land and the arctic flows grow. ( see my comments WAY back on Scotland's weather and the warmign of the Gulf Stream we enjoy ) You're confusing the events and the timing of the events.
ANOTHER possible outcome is the ultimate loss of 1/3 of the current land as the ice melts that land does't absorb heat from the sun and so the evening temperaatures drop more severly. THAT drop means that mean temperature will DROP and that means that ice will start to reform and on a massive scale. It is the MEAN temperature that is the issue with climate change.

I think you fall into the trap laid by the skeptics that by taking each individual event and saying that we dont' agree means tghat all shoudl be abandoned. Bad science. You wouldn't have a telephone or a computer OR a car if scientists had followed that kind of logic over the last 200 years !!

YES. It is not possible to say what will happen with certainty.
BUT, it MUST be acknowledgeed that under it's OWN control the earth has done pretty well for itself over the last few million years. It is the FACT that we can measure OUR influence that we must take care. The Earth formed to be stable by "laws of nature" ( or God if you wish ) and WE are chainging the formula that it runs by. To think it can cope with OUR manipulation is poor logic based on it having 'coped' in the past. And as chaos theory grew in the last 10 years we've come to quantify and understand the REAL RISK involved in a major system like a planet ecosystem getting unbalanced. Some of the skeptics even refute the concepts of chaos theory in bids to rubbish warnings of possibel climate change.

For a large part of the planet to ignore this while others take action is rather unfair as we won't have the chance to get them to pay their fair share once it's too late. If only there was a way to fine in the afterlife :(
But going back 5,000 years is just a small sample considering that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. How would core drillings show how large icebergs that broke off were?

Note how on the charts you posted the actual rise was far below the projected rise in temp?
Were you this concerned when global cooling was the prediction for the earth's future? What makes the charts you posted more accurate than the one I did? Because you claim the organization I posted is biased? Can you prove your sources are not biased? I will check for the global temp in 1000 A.D.

Again, rising waters may result in the earth's cooling, not warming. The cycle of the ice age shows that when the sea level rises, the warmer water will flow into the Arctic Ocean. Since warm water holds more moisture, there will be more precipitation (in the form of snow). The increased snow and ice cover will reflect more of the sun's rays back into the atmosphere. The glaciers will grow and travel south where they will overrun more land. This land will also cool because more surface area is covered with ice. And on and on. As you have said above (glad you agree, now).

The outcomes you are talking about would take thousands of years.

So, you've been Socialist (why?), Nationalist and even Conservative? In other words, you flip-flop... you're not John Kerry, are you? :D

IBrake4Rainbows

02-22-2005, 07:37 PM

But going back 5,000 years is just a small sample considering that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. How would core drillings show how large icebergs that broke off were?

Note how on the charts you posted the actual rise was far below the projected rise in temp?
Were you this concerned when global cooling was the prediction for the earth's future? What makes the charts you posted more accurate than the one I did? Because you claim the organization I posted is biased? Can you prove your sources are not biased? I will check for the global temp in 1000 A.D.

Again, rising waters may result in the earth's cooling, not warming. The cycle of the ice age shows that when the sea level rises, the warmer water will flow into the Arctic Ocean. Since warm water holds more moisture, there will be more precipitation (in the form of snow). The increased snow and ice cover will reflect more of the sun's rays back into the atmosphere. The glaciers will grow and travel south where they will overrun more land. This land will also cool because more surface area is covered with ice. And on and on. As you have said above (glad you agree, now).

The outcomes you are talking about would take thousands of years.

So, you've been Socialist (why?), Nationalist and even Conservative? In other words, you flip-flop... you're not John Kerry, are you? :D

So let me get this straight.

5000 years doesn't count when THAT was the last major ice age?

and the temperature still INCREASED, despite the fact it was not as much as expected, it still increased.

My understanding of global warming is that Hot air rises, and as the seas cool from all the ice breaking off and falling into them, not much hot air will rise from the oceans. Resulting in cold snaps. The movie The Day After Tommorrow was remarkably accurate, save for the time frame, it would take more than 7 days.

What Matra was saying is that we are increasing the process by burning fossil fuels, it may cut it down from 1,000 to 500 years, but it's still a decrease that society in the future will have to deal with.

So you've been arrogant, plain wrong and used opinion as fact. You're not FOX, are you :D

And i'm sorry i've not been in this more recently, my Broadband is on the fritz.

jcp123

02-22-2005, 07:41 PM

IBrake4Rainbows

02-22-2005, 07:45 PM

What i find interesting is that all of you who are fans of the channel do it a great disservice by not calling it "Fair and Balanced" instead talking about it like it's the only voice of the Conservatives, and the slogan has huge false advertising claims against it.

You can't claim to be Fair and Balanced while leaning one way or the other. It's as simple as that.

jcp123

02-22-2005, 07:51 PM

I never said it was fair and balanced. Being totally objective is pretty much impossible, not to mention it would most likely be boring. I have heard it argued, though, that it balances out the views of the other networks.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-22-2005, 07:53 PM

Fleet 500

02-22-2005, 07:57 PM

I'll agree that FOX offers a different perspective, but IMO it's should not be classed as a News Service if it reports Opinion as Fact. neither should any other station.
That's strange, when the regular news comes on (not the commentary shows), I don't hear Fox saying, "Now, here is the latest opinion!" They say, "Here is the latest news."

IBrake4Rainbows

02-22-2005, 08:01 PM

That's strange, when the regular news comes on (not the commentary shows), I don't hear Fox saying, "Now, here is the latest opinion!" They say, "Here is the latest news."

As already afformentioned by one of Crisis' posts, there is no break in such shows as the O'Reilly Factor between one of his rants and the latest news as presented by him. That to me is blurring the line between Fact and Opinion.

jcp123

02-22-2005, 08:02 PM

That may be, but whats to say eithers right?

or left, for that matter :p

I'll agree that FOX offers a different perspective, but IMO it's should not be classed as a News Service if it reports Opinion as Fact. neither should any other station.

I think we actually are agreeing here. I'm sort of cynical of all the major networks myself. I happen to agree more with Fox's perspective (not saying it's ultimately right, but I agree with it), but I would also say that if Fox isn't classified as a news service, than neither should the other major networks. It's no "worse" than they are when it comes to a lack of objectivity.

That said, I think everyone (myself included, I guess) makes a bigger ballyhoo over it than is really necessary. None of them are exceedingly biased in any way, but when you look it is there. As I said, purging all opinion from the news would not only be impossible (we're all human, after all), it would also be exceedingly boring.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-22-2005, 08:06 PM

I think we actually are agreeing here. I'm sort of cynical of all the major networks myself. I happen to agree more with Fox's perspective (not saying it's ultimately right, but I agree with it), but I would also say that if Fox isn't classified as a news service, than neither should the other major networks. It's no "worse" than they are when it comes to a lack of objectivity.

That said, I think everyone (myself included, I guess) makes a bigger ballyhoo over it than is really necessary. None of them are exceedingly biased in any way, but when you look it is there. As I said, purging all opinion from the news would not only be impossible (we're all human, after all), it would also be exceedingly boring.

it's just we all have this lofty perception that all journalists are there to tell the story and nothing more, the really good one's get to tell their opinion or attempt to add some kind of humanity to the story.

I would say it's exceedingly boring (MSNBC, Bloomberg anyone?) but it's that kindof News thats the purest and the one which i would consider more credible than a mainstream station like ABC (Which i get an entirely different version here in Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation) or FOX.

Common Ground at Last! we can say that no news is perfect. :p

jcp123

02-22-2005, 08:08 PM

:D lets celebrate being common then *pops open a bottle of champagne*

IBrake4Rainbows

02-22-2005, 08:10 PM

Hey, being one of the Common people isn't as bad as it sounds!

And i'm not allowed to drink yet but if you don't tell my parents, i won't :p

jcp123

02-22-2005, 08:12 PM

Hey, being one of the Common people isn't as bad as it sounds!

And i'm not allowed to drink yet but if you don't tell my parents, i won't :p

Hey, I'm not allowed to drink either. Never stopped me :D

And actually you're right bout bein common, I wouldn't really wanna be a celebrity or anything like that anyway. I don't even care to get all that rich, either.

Fleet 500

02-22-2005, 10:25 PM

As already afformentioned by one of Crisis' posts, there is no break in such shows as the O'Reilly Factor between one of his rants and the latest news as presented by him. That to me is blurring the line between Fact and Opinion.
As I have already mentioned, O'Reilly is a COMMENTATOR, not a news reporter. He is expected to give opinions; that's his job.

jcp123

02-22-2005, 10:27 PM

As I have already mentioned, O'Reilly is a COMMENTATOR, not a news reporter. He is expected to give opinions; that's his job.

That is true, he was never supposed to be a straight up news guy. It's an opinion show.

Fleet 500

02-22-2005, 11:04 PM

That is true, he was never supposed to be a straight up news guy. It's an opinion show.
You would think some other people would realize that by now. I've only said it something like 5 times. :rolleyes:

Matra et Alpine

02-23-2005, 11:44 AM

But going back 5,000 years is just a small sample considering that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. How would core drillings show how large icebergs that broke off were?
Sorry my error in memory, they go back over 100,00 years, it's the resolution that is at best to 5000.
On your second point, so because you can't tell 4.5billion you shoudl ignore 100,000 ? hmmm sounds like the theories used to back up the intelligence on WMDs at work :) PS: 4.5 billion years ago there was NO ice, so we do know some of it :) Ice can only be used as a climate indicator when it was formed. A bit hard to use ice cores when there want' any ice !! BTW, ICE cores are used as they capture temperature and atmosphere content. Rock samples ( which go back a LOT forther ) require more extrapolation than ice samples.
Note how on the charts you posted the actual rise was far below the projected rise in temp?
Were you this concerned when global cooling was the prediction for the earth's future? What makes the charts you posted more accurate than the one I did? Because you claim the organization I posted is biased? Can you prove your sources are not biased? I will check for the global temp in 1000 A.D.
PLEASE go back and read again.
You're insistence in not bothering your ARSE to read another point of view just convinces me and I suspect many others as to how bigoted and close0minded you are.
"Prove" well lets see .. the British Meteorological Society has been the longetst standing body wand used for the last 300 years to advise nations. They are INDEPENDANT of government influence and TOTALLY INDEPENDANT of the nasty funding paths your cited reports use. Can I PROVE it , no, can i prove beyond reasonable doubt - hell yes. SHit, you couldn't even get Michael's impartiality proved to a 5 year old who still believed in Santa !!!
So on the facts, you have been led by the nose and simplistic media to not understand the concepts of climatic change. The variation in Earth surface temperature has been increasing - so MUCH colder extremes , the mean sea temperature has been rising - so HIGHER mean temperatures. They are NOT mutually exclusive and it's been those who have tried to persuade the public to avoid reducing emissiosn that have used that seeming anomoly to ridicule concerns. IF you bother to read actual factual papers and reports - and not FOX "analysis" :) - then you woudl be better placed to understand it and continue this discourse. As it is, you show the learning skills of an 80 year old stuck in his ways.
Again, rising waters may result in the earth's cooling, not warming. The cycle of the ice age shows that when the sea level rises, the warmer water will flow into the Arctic Ocean.
aha see made the same mistake AGAIN.
Those gradula changes took thousands of years to happen. When we try to predict what happens if the water flows change dramatically. THIS is where the application of mathematical chaos theory shows that the possibilities have HUGE conssequences. So, do you avoid having car insurance because you drove yesterday and didn't have an accident ? Of course not, so WHY woudl you think it acceptable to NOT limit our impact on the climate ??
Since warm water holds more moisture, there will be more precipitation (in the form of snow).
hmm, let me think that one through.

Warm water holds more moisture.

moisture equals water molecules suspended in air.

How can somethign which has AIR in it be in the "warmn water".

Did you mean warm air ?

I'll presume you did.
So WHAT happens to warm air ?
Let me tell you it rise. So what happens when warm air rise ? It cools and THEN it rains. The balance in high/low pressure areas and cold/warm fronts is quite delicate. It is the breakdown of that balance that has been increasing torrential rain storms, hurricanes etc.

AND you've said it falls as snow ? Where, why ? If the air temp is high enough it actually reverts to rain by the time it has reached ground level.
If the pressure systems that drive our climate are also disrupted then it may not form large enough formations to be snow and may be thunderstorms and hurricans instead.

You've made the mistake AGAIN of only thinking on one thing at a time and forgetting the other impacts around it.
It totally negates ANYTHING you say as everyoen else has to explain all the things you missed.
THEN you ignore it - as you'ver done in this thread repeatedly.
PLEASE take 5 days out before posting here.
Spend the time learning and then join back in on a new thread.
As it is you are only showing yourself to have NO KNOWLEDGE of the concepts and to be spouting mini-'facts' that you are clearly just getting by googling !!
The increased snow and ice cover will reflect more of the sun's rays back into the atmosphere. The glaciers will grow and travel south where they will overrun more land. This land will also cool because more surface area is covered with ice. And on and on. As you have said above (glad you agree, now).
You've made the same mistake again.
With a larger body of salt water then there is actually LESS land mass for snow to lie on, so it may be prevented from forming the ice - one of the numebr of possible scenarios. STILL a bad one as 1/3 of the worlds population has no homes or land to grow food on !!
You need to STOP NOW thinking on one thing at a time, it just shows how little a grasp you really have on world events and environs.
The outcomes you are talking about would take thousands of years.
Possibly, just as it can take you 30 minutes to roll down a steep hill on a soap-box-derby. BUT with no brakes once you've started you cannot stop it.
BUT, the loss of land for growing food, the loss of crops due to pestiallance or climate change ( up or down ), the deaths of people unable to preotect themselves from unusual weather pattersn are all happening NOW. You seem to think we shoudl do NOTHING because the WORST CASE SCENARIO won't hit for 1000 years. That's a VERY selfish position to hold as a member of the human race :(
So, you've been Socialist (why?), Nationalist and even Conservative? In other words, you flip-flop... you're not John Kerry, are you? :D
ha-ha-ha- An AMerican view of politics. I bet you vote the same as your father did and his father and ...
THINK FOR YOURSELF MAN.
I was a nationalist whilst I was at university. Scotland at the time was finding oil on its doorstep and the monmey was going into an English governments pockets to spend in Britain and Europe. BACK then I felt that Scotland would do better with the money for the Scottish people. By my second year as a political activist I'd gronw up a bit and I realised that the SNP were holding a very selfish attitude. I felt that there are many others needing assistance and the income can benfit the GREATER good in the UK, Europe and abroad BUT that it needed a strong voice and government. One that Scotland coudl never attain on it's own. My brief flirtation with conservatism followed as I started dating ladies in the Young Conservatives, some of the principles are fine, but not enough of a grasp of common good and too much "let the individual look after themselves" - whcih in reality measn the rich avoid tax and get richer and the very bottom struggle to live never mind get out of their circumstances. I am now supportive of our local Labour candidates as they are maintaining a good balance of ensureing the right things are down locally and are NOT lap-dogs of their party nationally. I know that's aliedn to American who I've spoekn with in the past on politics that I might support a different party memeber locally and nationally. BUT that is because I prefer to support the best candidate and am less driven by blind party membership.
So not wishy-wasjy at all, in fact well-informed active decision - unliek supporting the same party all the time whcih is typically blind faith ( my father voted Labour for 30 years because his father had before HIME - that's not clever IMO )

Matra et Alpine

02-23-2005, 11:48 AM

Hey now, Fox is as fair as NBC, CBS, ABC, and most newspapers. Just going the other way (though from what little TV I watch, none of these networks is HUGELY biased). Strange how liberal media gets a free pass and anything that isn't liberal just gets beat on.
Maybe in the US, but that's not the case in most Eureopan countries.
Here we lambast ANY station based on the evidence of its reporting.
Less prty political driven news as we tend to seek more knowledge than opinion. So our news used to be less glitzy and as many visitors woudl say "boring". Sadly the advent of cable news has meant some have followed that route. So they get lambasted for THAT !!

Matra et Alpine

02-23-2005, 11:50 AM

That's strange, when the regular news comes on (not the commentary shows), I don't hear Fox saying, "Now, here is the latest opinion!" They say, "Here is the latest news."
That's right.
And hitler didnt' stand up in Germany and say "here comes a megalomaniac who will lead you to war and instigate crimes against humanity". He woudl never have gotten past the chancellry job ! Nope he told them what they wanted to hear. Just like FOX ?

Matra et Alpine

02-23-2005, 11:53 AM

I think we actually are agreeing here. I'm sort of cynical of all the major networks myself. I happen to agree more with Fox's perspective (not saying it's ultimately right, but I agree with it), but I would also say that if Fox isn't classified as a news service, than neither should the other major networks. It's no "worse" than they are when it comes to a lack of objectivity.

That said, I think everyone (myself included, I guess) makes a bigger ballyhoo over it than is really necessary. None of them are exceedingly biased in any way, but when you look it is there. As I said, purging all opinion from the news would not only be impossible (we're all human, after all), it would also be exceedingly boring.
sadly that is the WORST reflection on society I've seen in the posts of UCP.

Nes shoudl NEVER be made into somethign "more interesting" or driven by ratings. Otherwise you end up with continuous news channels who only tell you abotu local things ( as they interst us more ) and who will spend hours following car cahses ( cos that's exciting ) and forget to spend time on poverty, iliteracy and education issues or labur issues or the million other things in the international arean that affect us. Oh wait they do that already. Tough - you can always listen to the BBC on World radio :)

henk4

02-23-2005, 12:43 PM

Otherwise you end up with continuous news channels who only tell you abotu local things ( as they interst us more ) and who will spend hours following car cahses ( cos that's exciting ) and forget to spend time on poverty, iliteracy and education issues or labur issues or the million other things in the international arean that affect us

you could have referred here to the "Petersen" case which was milked by Fox ad nauseam during last November.

Fleet 500

02-23-2005, 03:28 PM

Matra:
Re- your lengthy climate post...
First, no, I don't vote like my father. First, he was registered as a Democrat until about 10 years ago. Second, he is nowhere as near as interested in politics/voting as I am. He even missed voting in the election before the last '04 presidential election. So you're wrong there. I definitely don't vote the same as my father.
Also, I don't blindly follow any party. I am a conservative more than I am a Republican. Meaning, I would vote for a conservative Democrat over a liberal (or moderate) Republican. If the '92 election were between Bush Sr. and John Kennedy, I would have voted for Kennedy because he was a fiscal conservative- Bush Sr. is not. Kennedy passed a tax cut bill similar to G.W. Bush and Reagan's. Bush Sr. foolishly agreed to sign the Democrat-proposed tax hike if the Dems would pass a few bills Bush Sr. wanted. The Dems agreed, but never voted in favor of the bills Bush Sr. proposed. (Then Clinton blamed Bush Sr. for the tax hikes!)

The climate...
You still cannot say that earth's temperature changes are directly caused by man.
As (I hope) you know, many of the global warming scares are related to money. For instance, I read something interesting about the freon thing...
A few years ago, we were forced to eliminate R-12 freon from automotive air conditioners. R-134 is more "environmentally" friendly because of fewer/no cfc's. This is garbage. The real reason is that DuPont's patent expired in '93 and they were in danger of losing their monopoly on production. So, no more R-12, but a new DuPont product. Except that R-12 is still freely available and legal.
I remember when my '71 Fleetwood needed freon added in 1996. The mechanic says there is only a limited supply of R-12 left- that was 9 years ago!

And, there was a Clean Air Act in the U.S. which passed years ago. It's not like the U.S. has done nothing to fight pollution- far from it.

The Arctic temperatures fluctuate naturally in regular cycles about 40 years long. The Arctic seems to be undergoing a warming phase similar to the one between 1900-1940. It will likely be followed by a cooling phase, similar to the one from 1940-1970.

More Arctic info here... http://www.amap.no/acia/

Fleet 500

02-23-2005, 03:40 PM

That's right.
And hitler didnt' stand up in Germany and say "here comes a megalomaniac who will lead you to war and instigate crimes against humanity". He woudl never have gotten past the chancellry job ! Nope he told them what they wanted to hear. Just like FOX ?
Only a lunatic would equate Hitler and Fox! :rolleyes:

I know you don't believe anything on any non-liberal news station, but here's something to consider:
"The liberal media... every poll shows journalists are more liberal than the American public- and the public knows it."
http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/2004/report063004_p1.asp

This site shows the poll in which 89% of the media voted for Clinton in 1992.
And a comparison of what presidents the media voted for:

Year............. Democrat candidate....Republican candidate
1964................. 94%........................ 6%
1968................. 87%........................ 13%
1972................. 81%........................ 19%
1976................. 81%........................ 19%

Matra et Alpine

02-23-2005, 04:28 PM

Matra:
Re- your lengthy climate post...
First, no, I don't vote like my father.
Thansk for the clarification, Odd, I was lambasted as flip-flop and like Kerry for having flexibility to vote for the right people. You do the same and yet you did the name-calling. CONFUSED :(
Stand in front of the mirror and talk to yourself about this one :)
The climate...
You still cannot say that earth's temperature changes are directly caused by man.
Being too analytical.
EVERYONE woudl concur that nobody can provide irrevocabel proof of the connection.
BUT the evidence is trheir in abundance to show there is a cause and effect in operation.
To what extent is debated.
Sadly some media ( and biased organisationas ) grab the variance and say it measn none of it applies.
In the real world there are NO 100% acts until they HAPPEN !
Are you personally comfortable to do less than you could ?
Do you have kids ? Are you happy mortgaging their future life on the hope that the experts are ALL wrong ? Their kids lives ?
I can't morally accept that personally adn maybe that's the fundamental difference you and I hold on this issue.
When action is needed, you can be the pharisee or the samaritan ( assuming you've a christian upbringing ). Clearly one is morally right and one morally wrong !!
As (I hope) you know, many of the global warming scares are related to money. For instance, I read something interesting about the freon thing...
A few years ago, we were forced to eliminate R-12 freon from automotive air conditioners. R-134 is more "environmentally" friendly because of fewer/no cfc's. This is garbage. The real reason is that DuPont's patent expired in '93 and they were in danger of losing their monopoly on production. So, no more R-12, but a new DuPont product. Except that R-12 is still freely available and legal.
So lets see, now you suggest we ignore all scares because a company ( American ! ) was duplicitous in its actions !!
CFCs damage the ozone, it is fact. It is measured in the stratosphere and repated iunder scientif conditions in laboratories. The replacement cause less damage. FACT. Confirmed in the stratospehere in test adn iunder scientific conditions in test labs.
The fact that money-grabbing American companies acted like selfish bastards at the time is NOT relevant to the issue that CFCs were harmful.
THAT other countries let them away with it is bad. Just as with catalytic converters versus lean burn engines. Europes lean-burn was meeting emissions without the horrors of cat production and contamination. BUT the US blocked lean-burn as being acceptable in the US and effectively forced all car makers to use cats. Cats are bad science !!!
Please try to seperate issues and NOT inter-weave them without realising their seperation.
I remember when my '71 Fleetwood needed freon added in 1996. The mechanic says there is only a limited supply of R-12 left- that was 9 years ago!
So sounds liek they have large enough stock piles and as everyeon switched to the newere one there is plenty of the old one available. Not sure where you're getting at with that point. OR are you sayign that DuPont are still making it ????
And, there was a Clean Air Act in the U.S. which passed years ago. It's not like the U.S. has done nothing to fight pollution- far from it.
So has everyoen else. Britains first clean air act was in 1956. That doesn't give it the right to NOT contiue to clean up where possible and thankfully we HAVE signed Kyoto. WHere are friends and allies when the hand is held out in the other direction ??
The Arctic temperatures fluctuate naturally in regular cycles about 40 years long. The Arctic seems to be undergoing a warming phase similar to the one between 1900-1940. It will likely be followed by a cooling phase, similar to the one from 1940-1970.

More Arctic info here... http://www.amap.no/acia/

LOVE IT. Was that another google hit ?
Because you need to go read it, check out http://www.amap.no/acia/GraphicsSet1.pdf and the other 4 graphics sets.
They explain EVERYTHING I've put to you here.
they do NOT suport any of your claims and repeat some of the graphs you dont' liek :)
Check out map set 2. They have a great graphic which demonstrates the issue with temperate water currents and increases in sea levels. As the sea increses some of the underground massifs which currently redirect flows will NOT do so as currents will now more readily flow OVER them due to the deeper water. It's a nice graphic.

Seriously, Fleet, tell me, are you just googling for these on keywords.
Cos so far almost every link you've given has actually NOT demontrated what you claimed and most of them have actually described the OPPOSITE :)
If these are being sent to you by a "friend" then you need to find new friends !!!

You woudl do well to read through the 4 sets of graphics on that site. Everybody who has an interest in the climate should. Anyeon know GWBs e-mail, we shoudl send it to him too - it's in nice simplke graphics and short sentences :)

Fleet 500

02-23-2005, 08:07 PM

Thansk for the clarification, Odd, I was lambasted as flip-flop and like Kerry for having flexibility to vote for the right people. You do the same and yet you did the name-calling. CONFUSED :(
Stand in front of the mirror and talk to yourself about this one :)

Do you have kids ? Are you happy mortgaging their future life on the hope that the experts are ALL wrong ? Their kids lives ?

BUT the US blocked lean-burn as being acceptable in the US and effectively forced all car makers to use cats.

So sounds liek they have large enough stock piles and as everyeon switched to the newere one there is plenty of the old one available. Not sure where you're getting at with that point. OR are you sayign that DuPont are still making it ????

So has everyoen else. Britains first clean air act was in 1956. That doesn't give it the right to NOT contiue to clean up where possible and thankfully we HAVE signed Kyoto. WHere are friends and allies when the hand is held out in the other direction ??

LOVE IT. Was that another google hit ?
Because you need to go read it, check out http://www.amap.no/acia/GraphicsSet1.pdf and the other 4 graphics sets.
They explain EVERYTHING I've put to you here.
they do NOT suport any of your claims and repeat some of the graphs you dont' liek :)
Check out map set 2. They have a great graphic which demonstrates the issue with temperate water currents and increases in sea levels. As the sea increses some of the underground massifs which currently redirect flows will NOT do so as currents will now more readily flow OVER them due to the deeper water. It's a nice graphic.

Seriously, Fleet, tell me, are you just googling for these on keywords.

I have flexibility when voting, too. But, unlike you, I don't change ideologies.

"Mortgaging the future of kids." Are you sure you're not a gloom-and-doom liberal? You sure sound like one!

Lean-burn? Chrysler had that back in the '70s.

As you read the patent for DuPont was about to expire, so they thought of another way to profit (hanging the CFC pollution thing on old air conditioners so they could introduce R-134 and make more money off that).

I wonder why U.S. cars in Europe were not required to have anti-smog devices in the '60s and '70s?

I love how you discount any and all sources you don't agree with! No, it wasn't a Google link or from a friend. Again, the map(s) clearly show that actual temperature rise was nowhere near the 2.6 degrees predicted by many "scientists."

Seriously, can you tell me for sure that there is global warming (caused by man and not a natural process)?

Fleet 500

02-23-2005, 08:20 PM

You woudl do well to read through the 4 sets of graphics on that site. Everybody who has an interest in the climate should. Anyeon know GWBs e-mail, we shoudl send it to him too - it's in nice simplke graphics and short sentences :)
You really should get over your obsession with Bush. Why, exactly, do you consider him to not be smart? Because he is not good at speech-making? A good speaker does not mean a person is smart (or even honest). Clinton was considered to be a good speaker, yet he was the most corrupt president in U.S. history.

If you want to continually pound a president for lack of smarts, consider former Vice President Al Gore:

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
- Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8-17-93

"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."
- Al Gore, 9-21-97

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
- Al Gore, 9-22-97

"For NASA, space is still a high priority."
- Al Gore, 9-5-93

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."
- Al Gore, 9-18-95

SlickHolden

02-24-2005, 05:29 AM

You really should get over your obsession with Bush. Why, exactly, do you consider him to not be smart? Because he is not good at speech-making? A good speaker does not mean a person is smart (or even honest). Clinton was considered to be a good speaker, yet he was the most corrupt president in U.S. history.

If you want to continually pound a president for lack of smarts, consider former Vice President Al Gore:

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
- Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8-17-93

"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."
- Al Gore, 9-21-97

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
- Al Gore, 9-22-97

"For NASA, space is still a high priority."
- Al Gore, 9-5-93

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."
- Al Gore, 9-18-95
Clinton did no wrong he just had a smoke in the oval office:D

henk4

02-24-2005, 05:37 AM

You really should get over your obsession with Bush. Why, exactly, do you consider him to not be smart? Because he is not good at speech-making? A good speaker does not mean a person is smart (or even honest). Clinton was considered to be a good speaker, yet he was the most corrupt president in U.S. history.

If you want to continually pound a president for lack of smarts, consider former Vice President Al Gore:

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
- Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8-17-93

"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."
- Al Gore, 9-21-97

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
- Al Gore, 9-22-97

"For NASA, space is still a high priority."
- Al Gore, 9-5-93

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."
- Al Gore, 9-18-95

Al may have said all this, but probably quoting GWB. At least the second and the last originate from the genius himself.

CdocZ

02-24-2005, 08:32 AM

the thing about nasa makes sense, actually. nasa is NOT just a space research group. my sisters bf recently had a job there (until funding got cut from it cause it wasnt working as well as they hoped). his job was in this program connected (form nasa) to many colleges, as nasa really badly needs a new crop of young people, as their old glory has worn off, and the major guys are getting ready to retire. what he worked on, along with msot of the others in the program, was in unmanned vehicle research, alot like the predator program the military has.
it was a large program, and he actually was the first one selected out of maryland university. sadly, nasa might cut this entire thing off really soon, in the middle of his dam THESIS.
but yea, nasa does a HELL of alot more then just space stuff.

Matra et Alpine

02-24-2005, 08:34 AM

I have flexibility when voting, too. But, unlike you, I don't change ideologies.
"ideologies" from a nation where the extreme left to extreme right can be matched within a SINGLE PARTY in European politics :) Made me laugh.
Pretty much and finding the best parts from all and then using that to drive my voting to get the best for me, family, freinds, neighbours and nations.
Better that than vorting with no REAL grasp of what the laternatives are :)
"Mortgaging the future of kids." Are you sure you're not a gloom-and-doom liberal? You sure sound like one!
And by ignroing it you convince all readers you are a REDNECK ! The wordst image American have to contend with in the international arena. So you DONT think you are risking the oppoertunities for your kids future ? Do you save money for their college fund ? Well why not their planet ?? Blinded by republicanism's "blind nationalism" perhaps ??
Lean-burn? Chrysler had that back in the '70s.
Never said they didn't. BUT they dropped it as a dead end and went the Cat route. Germany went the lean-burn route and matched the emissions with better fuel consupmtion and no expensive cat to manufacture or safely dispose of later :) But USA didnt' want it - a bit like supersonic transport, fine while there was a chance Boeing would produce it and then moved to be banned after they failed :)
As you read the patent for DuPont was about to expire, so they thought of another way to profit (hanging the CFC pollution thing on old air conditioners so they could introduce R-134 and make more money off that).

You make out as if the patent was the ONLY factor. I suspect not. But have no evidence either way, am happy to review any balanced reporting on it tho'
I wonder why U.S. cars in Europe were not required to have anti-smog devices in the '60s and '70s?
Because we didn't produce as much per vehicle - remember you guys were getting 8-10mpg while we were in the 20s and even 30s !!
Also there are less areas like LA with natural basins trapping it and less inversions holding it to the ground. The London Smog of 19512 was the trigger for the clean air act in the UK. It was a freak smog created by the worst cold-layer inversion. BUT the government didnt' hide saying it was one-off or not happen for 100s of years, they got on and stopped it. IF we had suffered the SERIOUS smog trap of LA then it woudl have been handled sooner.
I love how you discount any and all sources you don't agree with! No, it wasn't a Google link or from a friend. Again, the map(s) clearly show that actual temperature rise was nowhere near the 2.6 degrees predicted by many "scientists."
Sorry I only pointed out all the other things you ignored.
I have NEVER said that the prediction were accurate.
I have ALWAYS been consistent in talking about the trends and the mean temps.
You are confusing what I write with what you fail to read :)
Seriously, can you tell me for sure that there is global warming (caused by man and not a natural process)?
Climate change caused by man, yes 100%. The links you've been providing have told you that too. Just you HAVE to feel you must support GWB and his failure to stand up and let America be counted as wanting to save the planet. PLEASE try to remove the neo-consertisim-colored-glasses and READ the info you've been citing yourself. Read ALL the parts and digest them - not just the bits you wanted to find. Because as we've shown, so far EVERY link you've cited has actually said more supporting the OPPOSITE of your position than the part you seem to want everyoen else to read and igreno the rest !!

Matra et Alpine

02-24-2005, 08:37 AM

You really should get over your obsession with Bush.
You missed the smiley.
IF you have a sense of humour you will appreciate deprcative humour.
If not, you dont' FINE. But dont then assuem that everyone is obsessed with GWB. He's jsut the easy target by his own actions and one you will comprehend. If I made them about Blair ( which I also do regulalry, just not hera and with you ) you woudln't get it as you dont' know him.

Why, exactly, do you consider him to not be smart? Because he is not good at speech-making? A good speaker does not mean a person is smart (or even honest).
:cough: by failing to determine the truth about WMDs before committing a nation to war ?

Matra et Alpine

02-24-2005, 08:39 AM

but yea, nasa does a HELL of alot more then just space stuff.
NASA does most of the flights for cliamte and weather research.
NASA does a LOT on flight dynamics of PLANES.
SCRAM jet is coming otu of NASA project isn't it ??

UCR

02-24-2005, 08:45 AM

Ive got a NASA license and im not joking!!!!

UCR

02-24-2005, 08:50 AM

National Autograss Sport Association :p

Matra et Alpine

02-24-2005, 09:22 AM

Ive got a NASA license and im not joking!!!!
and it STILL doesn't help with picking up girls :)

CdocZ

02-24-2005, 09:24 AM

NASA does most of the flights for cliamte and weather research.
NASA does a LOT on flight dynamics of PLANES.
SCRAM jet is coming otu of NASA project isn't it ??
exactly, which is why the quote by gore, saying that nasa's priorities were in space was actually not that stupid afterall. the person who said it probably just doesnt know what nasa does completly

hyperk21

02-24-2005, 09:51 AM

the number one car that i love is the shelby gr-1
also older corvettes
the newer mustang v6
i have to go with cadillacs (mainly like the escalades, ext included)
the car that my parents have, i love it- chevy avalanche, nice and pimped out of course -lol :rolleyes:

something i really do not like is ford.. i think fords are useless-but that is just my opinon :)

Fleet 500

02-24-2005, 12:38 PM

Al may have said all this, but probably quoting GWB. At least the second and the last originate from the genius himself.
Nice try, but I remember when Gore said many of those.
I remember them talking (and laughing) about them on the radio and TV.

Speaking of bias... you seem to refuse to accept the fact that those are originally Gore's quotes (which there were). All you can say is he is probably quoting GWB, genius, blah, blah, blah...

Fleet 500

02-24-2005, 12:47 PM

You missed the smiley.
IF you have a sense of humour you will appreciate deprcative humour.
If not, you dont' FINE. But dont then assuem that everyone is obsessed with GWB. He's jsut the easy target by his own actions and one you will comprehend. If I made them about Blair ( which I also do regulalry, just not hera and with you ) you woudln't get it as you dont' know him.

:cough: by failing to determine the truth about WMDs before committing a nation to war ?
A sense of humor would apply to something that is true. Calling Bush stupid is not true.

How could he personally determine the truth? The whole world believed Saddam/Iraq had WMD (and there are a few remaining traces of some).
It was not up to Bush to find the WMD, it was Saddam's responsibility to prove he didn't have them. He didn't prove it.
Again, U.N, U.S., British, even Russian intelligence reported that Iraq still had WMD. There was even money traced going right to the Iraqi government to buy material needed. The Iraqi scientists got the money, but for some reason, did not start actually spending it to buy the weapons. How was Bush supposed to know this? Even the best intelligence sources didn't know.
I wonder where the WMD are that Saddam had not accounted for? I think they are either buried deep in Iraq or (more likely) moved to Syria.

In any case, Saddam is now out of power- this is good, right?
It would have been only a matter of time before Saddam started building WMD again. Bush chose to act BEFORE that happened. Clinton (or Gore) would have waited until Saddam used them (on Israel or some other country).

CdocZ

02-24-2005, 01:33 PM

Calling Bush stupid is not true.
he has the lowest iq out of the past 10-15 presidents......its a bit less then average. iq doesnt mean everything........but it does mean quite a bit.
(its like 85-90 if i remember correctly)
EDIT: looked it up, 91. lowest of the past bunch of republicans, and democrats.

Fleet 500

02-24-2005, 01:49 PM

he has the lowest iq out of the past 10-15 presidents......its a bit less then average. iq doesnt mean everything........but it does mean quite a bit.
(its like 85-90 if i remember correctly)
EDIT: looked it up, 91. lowest of the past bunch of republicans, and democrats.
That is not verified.
Also, Bush's GPA was higher than Gore's and Kerry's.
According to PBS, Bush's I.Q. is in the 95th percentile (smarter than 95% of people) and Kerry is in the 91st percentile.

CdocZ

02-24-2005, 01:59 PM

interesting.......whatever. just stating what i heard.

Fleet 500

02-24-2005, 02:12 PM

Clinton did no wrong he just had a smoke in the oval office:D
Well, I don't know if you're serious or not, but if you are, you really don't know much about what Clinton did.

He became only the second President in history to be impeached.
He became the first President in history to be found in contempt of court, and fined, by a Federal Judge (the judge, btw, was a Democrat). Clinton was also forced to surrender his law license (disbarred).

Some other items (which you won't hear about from CNN or the New York Times)... :D

- Violated the Constitution by signing into law an ex-post facto law, a retroactive tax increase.
- Offered State Troopers federal jobs in return for their silence about Clinton's crimes.
- Committed witness tampering by causing bribes to be paid to Webster Hubbell.
- Made fund-raising calls from the White House, a federal property.
- 94... the number of Clinton associates who have (1) fled the country or (2) directly refused to answer questions when testifying about Clinton's scandals.
- 11 counts of impeachable offenses found in Ken Starr's report.
- 43% of the Senate vote guaranteed to acquit long before the trial even started
- $20,000... the amount of vandalism done to the Whtie House by the Clinton administration right before they left.
- $150,000... the amount of White House property taken by the Clintons.
- Abused his position as governor to extort sexual favors from employees.
- Fired all the U.S. attorneys to appoint Paula Casey who prevented Judge David Hale from testifying against Clinton.
- Blocked the criminal trial of Representative Ford, a Tennessee Democrat.
- Accepted a bribe from the government of China, hidden from federal election inspectors by laundering it through Ng Lap Seng, the Bank of China, Charlie Trie and his relatives, adn his Legal Defense Fund.
- Lied under oath to a Grand Jury.
- Struck a deal with Robert Ray to spare him from criminal charges the day before he left office.

There are more I could list, but I think now you know why he was the most corrupt President in the history of the United States.

(BTW, going by Clinton's past record, just who really is the "stupid" President here?)

Matra et Alpine

02-24-2005, 02:54 PM

A sense of humor would apply to something that is true. Calling Bush stupid is not true.
Depends how you measure stupid !
Getting caught doing drugs, failing to run a Texas oil company, how many more do you want ????
How could he personally determine the truth? The whole world believed Saddam/Iraq had WMD (and there are a few remaining traces of some).
PARDON ?

Was that reported on FOX News then :) ?????

Let us spell it out one word at a time.

the
whole
world
did
NOT
agree
that
Saddam
HAD
WMD's
when Bush attacked.

THAT was the role of the UN inspectors, THEY were tasked to give the evidence so that the world coudl know if he had or had not !!!! GWB didn't want to wai, he had the media fired up and realised he coudl get the country united. ( Read neo-conservatism scare tactics !! )
It was not up to Bush to find the WMD, it was Saddam's responsibility to prove he didn't have them. He didn't prove it.
You want to go read your constitution and laws YOU live under.
You awnt to go read the British and French and German and oh almost EVERY judicial system on the planet. It is the role of the prosecution to PROVE guilt, not for the defendant to prove innocence.
Clearly "land of the free" isn't true anymore if most pople in the US think like you. You are all guilty and just waiting to be jailed - after all you can't prove innocence all the time :)
Again, U.N, U.S., British, even Russian intelligence reported that Iraq still had WMD.
AND each of them were ALSO pointing out the possible errors and the areas which were uncorrobrated. Also, it's coming to light that at the time some were concerned that evidence was being provided by individuals who would benefit from Saddams downfall. That's called tainted evidence and in a REAL court woudl be inadmissiable.
There was even money traced going right to the Iraqi government to buy material needed.
The problems with most of those materisl ( because I've not read ALL cases raised ) was that they were dual purpose. Thye COUDL be used for other things.
The Iraqi scientists got the money, but for some reason, did not start actually spending it to buy the weapons. How was Bush supposed to know this? Even the best intelligence sources didn't know.
PLEASE, you did not hear of any beacuse it was kept quiet. It is clear that AT THE TIME they coudlnt' prove tat he was buying the materials and these problems WERE raised. It was criminal for Bush and Blair to ignore the concerns raised within their respective intelligence services. I would actually liek to see a legal case brought for damages and have Bush and Blair answer to these actions in international court of law ( EXcept Bush refuses to sign up to that part of International Law - I wonder why :( ). THEN it woudl be interesting if each of them woudl demand the right to be innocent until PROVEN guilty or if they coudl be sentenced based on the fact they coudln't prove themselves innocent.
It's when you analyse a situation without persoanl bias that difficult scenarios like that surface and the duplicity of the argument arises !!
Trye it :)
I wonder where the WMD are that Saddam had not accounted for? I think they are either buried deep in Iraq or (more likely) moved to Syria.[?QUOTE]
I think Donald Rumsfield is a cross-dressing rent boy.
Did that make it fact ? Nope. Can he PROVE he isn;t ? NOPE.
Has the point got across yet ? Sadly I suspect not to you :( (yet) :(
[QUOTE]In any case, Saddam is now out of power- this is good, right?Nobody debates that.
Shold he ahve been removed legally ? Woudl have made the world a better and safer place as criminals woudl have realised that NOBODY is above the law. At the moment, GWB is just making it look as if corporate America, the American governmenet and the American people are above International Law :(
It would have been only a matter of time before Saddam started building WMD again.
What's value will the Dow Jones be at on 23rd June.
Hell if you can predict SO accurately what Saddam woudl do then stock market should be easy !!
IF the war had not started, the UN inspectors would have been able to complete their inspection and either have found the WMD - and thus remove them and have reasons to charge Saddam iunder International Law. If they DIDN'T find any then we woudl have known none existed and the UN coudl have arranged for low loevel monitoring of movement and purchasing to ensure he didn't start again.
See, neither needed a bloody war to prevent him having them.
So you didn't get the crystal ball right because you forgot that there WERE other alternatives that woudl have delivered the same results.

Bush chose to act BEFORE that happened. Clinton (or Gore) would have waited until Saddam used them (on Israel or some other country).
You still can't grasp anything except what GWB has indoctrinated you to :(
The UN coudl have handled the situation.
Sure it woudln't have guaranteed GWB a second term, but it WOUDL have stood up better in the eyes of everyoen on the planet. How many natiosn now feel justified in putting their own rights ahead of their neighbours and the International Law Courts ? Plenty of them :(
You can't avoid a law and then expect everyoen else to adhere to them.
We ahve created a VERY dangerous situation and it WILL get worse :(