How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 WW - 3? eventually?   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

WW - 3? eventually?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


0 posted 02-01-2010 08:21 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Posting what I think is the most important news story NOT reported on:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/286806

iran vs israel = WWIII

IMHO

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


1 posted 02-01-2010 08:58 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Never again . . .


.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


2 posted 02-02-2010 04:26 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Iran is just proof positive that the UN is little more than a girl scout club.

Of all the entities in the world, the UN should be the one that holds Iran in check with nuclear weapons BEFORE they get them fully developed.  Instead, all the wimpy European countries will ignore Iran's threats, and watch Israel get attacked for the umpteenth time, without a bit of support from the EU or the UN until AFTER the issue is decided, then they will come down on the Arab side, demanding that Israel play nicer in war.  Disgusting.

All it takes for evil to take hold
is for good people to do nothing.

USA Naval missile shields are going up in the Gulf region as ships move in last week, in an attempt to intercept Iran rockets BEFORE they can actually hit Israel.  

Know this, however: in the case of a nuclear attack, the bombs NEVER touch ground.  They are detonated a mile above the intended target.  There may not be time to react.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


3 posted 02-02-2010 04:53 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

"In recent years, Americans have become dependent not just on electricity but on computers, microchips, and satellites. The infrastructure that supports all this has become increasingly sophisticated — but not more resilient. On the contrary, as this infrastructure has become more complex, it also has become more fragile and therefore more vulnerable — an Achilles’ heel.

That is why, in 2001, the U.S. government established a commission to “assess the threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack.” Such an attack would involve the detonation of a nuclear warhead at high altitude over the American mainland, producing a shockwave powerful enough to knock out electrical power, electronics, communications, transportation, refrigeration, water-pumping stations, sewage systems, and much more. Think of a blackout, but one of indefinite duration — because we have no plan for recovery and could expect little or no help from abroad.

Historian William R. Forstchen researched what America would be like in the aftermath of an EMP attack for his novel One Second After. I don’t think I’m spoiling the experience for prospective readers by telling you that Forstchen is convinced the result would be millions of deaths from starvation and disease, a catastrophe from which America would never fully recover.

The EMP commission also reported that Iran — which is feverishly working to acquire nuclear weapons — has conducted tests in which it launched missiles and exploded warheads at high altitudes. The CIA has translated Iranian military journals in which EMP attacks against the U.S. are explicitly discussed."

http://article.nationalreview.com/422973/the-sun-also-flares/clifford-d-may

.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


4 posted 02-02-2010 05:01 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

last month Iran conducted several missile launch tests which ALL detonated in the air.  I heard many pundits say that this is proof that Iran isn't ready yet for nukes since they couldn't get the bombs to detonate by ground-impact.  They couldn't be more wrong or ignorant of modern warfare.

EMP attacks, Hydrogen bomb, Atomic bomb, and Neutron bomb attacks ALL are detonated above ground, usually above the eye-sight ability of people to see them approach.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


5 posted 02-02-2010 11:18 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Iran is just proof positive that the UN is little more than a girl scout club.

There hasn't been any doubt of that for many years.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


6 posted 02-03-2010 10:14 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     EMP is a real danger.  Exactly how much danger the military is in, I don't know.  My understanding, perhaps false, is that military electronics are hardened against EMP.  I'm not sure how this could be.  It would be useful if civilian electronics could be as well, if that's possible.

     As for Arab Israeli conflict, I'd suggest that there is excellent reason for that conflict to be settled.  If use of oil could be taken out of the equation, I suspect that it would be simpler to deal with; and that this is one more excellent reason to reduce world dependence on oil for fuel.  It distorts geopolitics.  

     I think that there is some serious thinking to be done on the subject of  fuel.  In this country, we are once again talking up the benefits of nuclear power — I think wrongfully, by the way — while we panic at the notion of Iran doing the same thing.  

     I think that we know that spent fuel is dangerous for Iranians to have, and it's dangerous to leave lying around with no means of safe disposal, but we've split the discussion.  Nuclear power is unsafe, evil and dangerous over there, but it's swell and lovely over here.  There is something wrong with this picture.

     By the way, I believe Iran with an actual bomb is bad news, same as most of you guys.  I simply have no idea what their thinking is on the matter, and I'm not sure that anybody else does either.  That would probably include the Iranians themselves.

     I am not comforted by our having the bomb, either, for that matter, though I suppose that's another thread.  Extreme doctrine and world ending fire-power are not a comfortable combination.  I don't think it matters which doctrine it is that feels it's okay to end the world, it's simply plain bad manners to me.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


7 posted 02-05-2010 07:38 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Thursday, Glenn Beck did a show on what I've only seen on BBC:  that Iran and Ahmadinajad thinks he is the chosen one that can hasten the coming of the 12th Imam: the Iran Shia version of Armageddon.  The people that believe this insane theory think that the Little Satan (Israel) and the Great Satan (USA) must be annihilated and all non-Islamic believers removed before Allah can return.  

The 12ers were considered to be so radical, the last Ayatollah kicked out all known political 12er leaders.  Ahmadinhijad survived the purge, and gained power.  Each Feb. 11th, he's made the pledge:

"O God hasten the arrival of Imam al Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those who attest to his rightfulness"

He believes this will come on the 30th anniversary of the Mahdi:  next Feb. 11th, 2010.  He's been talking about this in several speeches since 2005.  Here is a Charles Krauthammer article written prophetically in December 16th of 2005:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501428.html  

Read it, and commit it to memory.  Eventually Ahmadinhajad will try to force the coming of the 12th Imam.    He launched a missle this week capable of carrying a nuclear payload in its tip (carefully disguised as a science mission, carrying, of all things, a worm and a turtle.)  The media naturally downplayed the significance of the event launch.  The revolution will cause, according to the Koran:  'Muslim blood to run through the streets' {sic}

I thought the case for the initial Iraq war weak and that GW Bush jumped the gun before conclusive proof of nuclear proliferation was concrete.
Iran is 10 times FURTHER along than Iraq in nuclear weapons development, is in the last stage.  China and Russia are helping Iran with the necessary technology jumps to get there.   We now have TWO countries in the world, both run by out-of-their-mind leaders: Kim in N.Korea and Ahmadinhajad in Iran.  Neither one will hesitate to use their weapons to gain power or to hasten their version of radical Islamic Shia Armageddon.  Even the normal Sunni Iranians think this religion is too dangerous in theory for their OWN country!  

I am VERY concerned that Obama won't know how to handle this possible scenario if it 'blows up'.   One of two things will happen:  either Ahmadinhajad will be removed from office, or he WILL use nukes.  Do we, as citizens of the Earth, wait
or do we as a collective do something immediately, right now?  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


8 posted 02-05-2010 08:25 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Do we, as citizens of the Earth, wait or do we as a collective do something immediately, right now?  

Like what? Start killing people again? Because you're convinced you know what the future will bring?

If the only alternative to starting a war is starting a war, I'm not sure that makes us any better than them.


threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


9 posted 02-05-2010 09:42 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

The number of options for solving Iran getting Nuclear bomb capability has drastically been reduced DUE to inactivity.  

The answers?  
Well, 'CONSENSUS' would be a great start.  We can't even get Progressive assent that Ahmadinhijad is a serious problem.  They're not going to put themselves out on a limb.  Hell, even after 9-11 pilots were almost exclusively Saudi's, the progressive pundits defended them; blaming the connection on Bush, and saying the Israelis were behind it, sneaking out of the bldg. early.

Only when International consensus is reached, can-sumption be done about it.

A next possible step would be to take military backed Atomic Energy Coalition members to disarm the Iran's nuclear capability.  Regular AEC inspectors must be left in place, once cleaned up, to insure ongoing compliance.

The easiest solution, however, would be to just take Ahmadinhajad out of power.  Iranian people themselves are very very close to a natural revolution to overthrow him and his fellow 12ers.  The city Iranians are largely Sunni- which is a much more modern Islamic interpretation than the Shia's, who still believe in Sharia law under Ahmadinhajad.  The CIA's done it before, and to hear that they stirred up the Iran 'Tea Party', wouldn't be beneath them, nor would it suprise me.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


10 posted 02-06-2010 01:25 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Iranian people themselves are very very close to a natural revolution to overthrow him and his fellow 12ers.

The Iranian people? Well, that pretty much leaves us out of it, doesn't it?

As well it should.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


11 posted 02-06-2010 03:58 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Iranians have the equivalent of Pat Robertson in their Presidency:  That is, somebody who believes in the end times and would like them to get here in a big way, and who makes extremely provocative statements in public about what ought to be done with his country's power.  

     I would remind you that we have had at least two Presidents given to making very provocative staements ourselves.   It seems likely that the first of them was involved in an arms for hostages deal with the Iranian people that you're upset with now.  If the other President had had his way, it seems likely that we would be involved with a war with Iran right now at a time when we can ill afford it.

     Letting the CIA make policy for us seems to have set off much of the Iranian difficulty back in the early fifties, when we backed a coup by the Shah to overthrow the popularly elected government there.  The Shah and Savak have not been forgotten, and the memory of their behavior still fuels the outrage of the older generation of Islamic fanatics over there.  Your thought that the CIA might do a better job the second time around is one that I view with substantial suspicion.  

     For all the good that they say they've done us (that they always say must go unreported for reasons of national security, and hence is unconfirmable, as though it were a fiction) we are left with loads of disasters that can be almost too readily placed at their feet.  We can tell a lot about the CIA from their failures.  One of the things we can tell is the nature of the missions they feel they have a right to undertake, and what they think a positive outcome may have been.  Overthrowing democracies because they are left-leaning but still viable democracies expressing the will of the people of that country, as in Chile, for example, is not my notion of what an American institution should be doing.  We seem to have made a habit of doing this in several countries in Central and South America, and, as I said above, in Iran as well.

     For folks who profess to have faith in Democracy, we display very little of that faith in our foreign relations.  We need to make friends, not enemies.

     Just a few thoughts.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


12 posted 02-08-2010 02:33 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e0b08e9e64fe15a987c1cf73dd8c5fe2.52   1&show_article=1

and again, the warning has been sounded
and again, the mass media ignores it.

--------------------

On a side note, I went to our largest supermarket chain to get a prescription filled: on the magazine rack, i noticed an absence of two publications:
Time Magazine
and Newsweek.

I thought this was an anomoly, and went next door on a whim to check, and sure enough, at CVS Pharmacy, they no longer carried Time or Newsweek.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/magazines-newsstand-sales-fall-91-  percent/

When media goes too far left
so goes it's mass audience.  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


13 posted 02-09-2010 05:29 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     And what's the sales of The Globe and The National Inquirer like, Threadbear?  Apparently when Right wing  media do more sales, the trash media sells lots more undoccumented speculation about flying saucers kidnapping nuns.  Perhaps the public simply can't tell the difference without decent fact checked journalism around, with sources that are willing to go on the record and speak for attribution instead of the maybe it's news maybe it's opinion Fox New Channel folks who won the suit that allowed them to force their reporters to comply with newtwork policy and lie rather than tell the truth on air.

     Some people would say, as Mr Hannity has been known to suggest, that's there's a connection.  Certainly you don'y hesitate to blame it on the Left.  Can you cite reasearch or facts that would back up your assertion?
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


14 posted 02-09-2010 05:40 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

cough cough cough
Did I just hear you say that the National Enquirer is a Right leaning publication?  Last time I heard anything like that, it was after several Guinesses (Guinness-i?)and my bar stool buddy tried to convince me that Madonna was a good mother, too.

The NY Times is so far left, that even the left leaning NYers can't handle it, and it's circulation is down under 500,000 out of 12 million potential NYers.  10 years ago, every businessman in New York had a copy under his arm.  Newsweek hasn't done a positive story on any Republican in 10 years!  Time magazine is no better in their apparent bias.  

All written publications are suffering, but not as quickly as MSNBC's & NBC's numbers have decreased, Move-On.Org's unpopularity, Time, Newsweek, and NY Times failing rapidly.  

I'll bite, however:  show me a conservative magazine (like National Review, ie) that is going down with the same vigor as the above mentioned liberal leaning media outlets.  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


15 posted 02-09-2010 08:33 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I'm pointing out that the Rise of the right wing media parallels the rise of the The Globe and The Enquirer style media, while the media that seems to suffer is the media on the left.  It suggests that The Right wing media and the trash media have something in common in that their sources tend to be vague and unchecked, with some notable exceptions such as The Economist, which is very well done indeed.

     You should note that the ease with which you might obtain the Econonist is not much higher than that with which you might obtain Time or Newsweek.  Newsweek, while it might be thought of as a slightlly liberal magazine is not in the same catagory as Time, which has always seems centrist or even slightly rightist to me.

     Your notion of where the  political spectrum lies seems to have been influenced by the neoconservative point of view.  Were you to believe them, it would seem that Eisenhower was a flaming communist for being skeptical of the Military-industrial complex and for having to have his arm twisted to allow the annual Prayer breakfast to get any traction at all.  He was very dubious of the whole notion, not that you know from the current revionist history put out by the current members of the Republican/Christian caucus in the Congress.  

     The current Republican notion that The President is a socialist is an example of this bizarre revision of history.  Anybody who actually has a memory of the fifties — I had thought you did — should remember what a 1950's Republican was like, and that there were actual Centrist Republicans at that time who as far Left as our current President:  Like Governor Rockefeller, for example.

     This current rewriting of history is like 1984, where the power blocks in Orwell's fictional world habitually re-wrote history to suit their current positions and enforced their revisions with their "ministries of truth."  You are selling anything but history here, threadbear.  I find myself bewildered.

     And no, I don't find "The Inquirer" or "The Globe" to be right wing publications.  I don't recall either "The Enquirer" or "The Globe" winning law-suits against their employees that upheld their institutional right to set a policy to publish lies and to require their employees to publish or read those lies as though they were the truth.  Even "The Globe" and "The Enquirer" at least [i]pretend[i] they are in the business of telling the truth, don't they?
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


16 posted 02-10-2010 01:16 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Well, I'll make this short and uh..
well..short will do.

Print media is dead.  Been dead for about 3 years.  I know, 'cause I'm in it.  It is nearly impossible to get credentialed anymore.  Nobody is paying for stories.  Security is too tight.  People use online more.  Magazines are too expensive ($4-5 for most.)

and, the news magazines don't report the news anymore:  they rant on it, from a decidedly leftist point of view.  I couldn't get thru one issue of Newsweek during the Bush administration.  So I stopped reading it, and apparently millions of others did, too.  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


17 posted 02-10-2010 07:10 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     More generalizations without specifics.  I know you have a point of view, and I know that your explanations sound logical to you, but despite the cost of print media, they're still out there.  I don't know what you mean when you say security is too tight.  Too tight to check facts?  Too tight for what, please?  There are still one or two folks who'll pay to buy Playboy and Cosmo and even The New Yorker and Poetry Magazine.  They pay to buy The Atlantic, despite it's somewhat more conservative bias these days, and time and Newsweek are still in print.  Some of the larger magazines have cropped up on line, these days, like Slate.  They're still supposed to check sources and tell the truth, unlike Fox, which has made a point of taking an legal exemption on that one.  They don't want anybody suing them for lying any more.  They've made it clear that they feel no obligation to tell the truth, only to comply with editorial policy.

     The news that people rant upon is, near as I can tell, fairly frequently a product of the right wing press.  Much of that being a product of Fox, any attempt to identify that with the truth is not something that Fox regards as a legal obligation.  They have legal judgements to prove this.  No other new organization to my knowledge has ever gone to court to assert their right to lie during a news program and not be held responsible for that fact.  I notice that this is not something that Fox actually advertises in their literature or on air, which surprises me.  They did after all have to pay good money in legal fees to get the judgement in their favor saying exactly that hammered out in court.  You'd think they brag about how they've become the news leader for the conservative forces in this country and how the conservative forces in the country proudly put their faith in this organization.  

     The rest of us idiots seem to want to settle for the truth.  How foolish we are, hey!

     Obviously as wish to hear and be informed of what the truth may be, and the upset at being lied to and deceived is something that folks on the right are used to and actually seem to enjoy.  They stand up regularly for their network of choice and for other "news" sources that echo the same "facts" the Fox broadcasts.  The feel that being lied to is worth of being upset, and the reaction at being treated this shabbily is called by those on the right as "rants."  You certainly call these sort of things rants, as in:

quote:


the news magazines don't report the news anymore:  they rant on it, from a decidedly leftist point of view.  I couldn't get thru one issue of Newsweek during the Bush administration.  So I stopped reading it, and apparently millions of others did, too.  




     Apparently being lied to by  your news sources was fine with you, and was not worth ranting about.  If I find The New York Times has lied to me or misinformed me, I expect them to say so and try to do something about it.  Oddly enough, I find they actually do from time to time.  They seem to deserve to be the paper of record in the country because they actually tend to say when they notice they've made a mistake.  This is more than I can say for many of the efforts at reportage that the Fox Folk have attempted.

     Perhaps you are aware of an incidence when they stated flat out that Iraq was not responsible for the 9/11 Bombings in New York.  If they have, I remain sadly unaware of any such retraction.  If they have retracted their statements that Iraq was involved with  Al Qaeda and was giving aid and comfort to those forces before our invasion, I'd be happy to see those retractions pointed out to me.  The involvement wasn't until much later and hadn't anything to do with Saddam Hussein; it came as a reaction to our invasion of Iraq and still remains relatively small compared to the local resistance and to the supporting Shi'ia resistance responding to our actual invasion.  If Fox has said anything, I haven't heard it, and they have certainly permitted and encouraged the majority of their listeners to hold a false and misleading belief.

     You stopped listening to reports of information that didn't agree with your pre-held beliefs, Threadbear.  The New York Times for a while held beliefs and reported beliefs that were very close to the ones that you held then and seem to hold today.  Even at that time, you seemed to feel that The Times was a Leftist Organization, despite the fact that its loyalty was to the facts that it was getting and as it understood them, and that the facts at that time agreed with you.

     This suggests that you were not paying attention to the facts that were being reported, but to the politics of the matter.

     I would suggest that one judges reality on the basis of reality and not on the basis of politics.

     When the facts that The Times Got changed, and got more in depth confirmation from more sources, they changed their reportage and they apologized.  This is the appropriate tack to take.

     The Times, after all, has never tried to say that it should not be responsible for reporting the best understanding of truth that it had.

     Sorry I wasn't able to keep it short.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


18 posted 02-10-2010 01:34 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

  The security issue is something I have to deal with as being a sports journalist:  I can't even get credentialed for the Indy 500, due to security issues.  Most sports media offices only allow larger newspapers from established staff.  Free-lance writers, photographers, small newspapers, regional newspapers: they are all unable to get media access anymore to events.  Local coverage is critical to generating interest in local newspapers.

Each day I read the following:
Huffington Post
Daily Kos
Indianapolis Star
USA Today
Drudge Report
NY Times
Breitbart
Washington Journal C-Span TV

About every 3rd day, I read
Salon.com
Rolling Stone
Chicago Tribune
National Review
Washington Post
Debka
Jerusalem Post

In my opinion, those are very diverse sources.

[This message has been edited by threadbear (02-10-2010 10:59 PM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


19 posted 02-11-2010 11:07 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I agree, they are diverse sources.  And I admire your professional efforts.

     You should knopw what I mean, then, about acvcuracy when I talk avout Fox, shouldn't you?  Have any of these other Publications rfaced the need to asserty a similar right to lie  on their reporters?
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


20 posted 02-11-2010 02:33 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Hey, thank you for the kind accolade, Bob.  That was cool, and appreciated!
2nd question:  yes,
Huffington Post and Daily are inaccurate or misleading every day.  Take a look at their headlines, then go into the stories: they are totally different.  Even their own poll on their site said Ariana Huffington was 67% likely to be more yellow journalist than a 'real' journalist (their poll.)
CNN has had some serious accuracy problems in the past few years, and I won't even get into the myriads of MSNBC's inaccuracies from Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman.  Olbermann, just last night, tried to convince his audience that the snowstorm was concrete PROOF that 'Climate Change' problems are real.  Yeah, there's alot of current scieitific data to back up THAT claim based on this snowstorm.  
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


21 posted 02-11-2010 05:47 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Here's a link to the Olbermann Report Jeff mentioned:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/11/olbermann-limbaugh-and-palin-trying-kill-us-all-global-warming-skepti

threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


22 posted 02-11-2010 09:28 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Back on Topic dept:

The Iranian government today shut down:

"...Iranian authorities again tried to squeeze off text messaging and Web links in attempts to cripple protest organizers. Internet service was sharply slowed, mobile phone service widely cut and there were repeated disruptions in popular instant messaging services such as Google chat.

But several Iranians reached by The Associated Press said some messenger services, including Yahoo!, and mobile phone texting were still sporadically accessible. Many Internet users said they could not log into their Gmail account, Google's e-mail service, since last week. ..."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100211/D9DPUL400.html

Their revolution is only a slogan away.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


23 posted 02-11-2010 10:23 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Quickie reaction - thank God quick draw Palin and bomb bomb Iran McCain aren’t at the helm.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


24 posted 02-12-2010 02:54 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     The comment was sincere, and I stand by it.

     Your comments about the business about the accuracy, however, seem to have missed my point.  Let me elaborate.

quote:

http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003/February/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf




     Fox News, unlike any of the other news organizations under discussion and any other news organization of which I am aware, is the only news organization which has taken the conscious position that they do not have to tell; the truth in a news story.  They sued in Florida state court to win this particular judgement, and much to their apparent joy, they won.   The details of the decision are included above.  Should you wish to do further checking, of course, the field is open.

     Despite your feelings about the other news organizations that you mention, none of them so far as I understand it, would consider such a position, believing, near as I can tell, that they have an obligation to the truth.  Apparently, this is something that Fox has decided is further down their list of imperatives, and this value is so highly held by them that they are willing to go to court to have it upheld.

     Of course, if you have found some other news organization willing to sue to make their position clear on the matter of their flexibility about the truth and how it stands in regard to their political and economic agenda, I'd be willing and even eager to see the evidence you present.  Polls, I would add, are matters of opinion, aren't they?, and their actual ability to measure truth is not high.  They can, however, do a pretty good job of assessing public opinion about such matters as ghosts and angels, which they tend to favor.

     They also felt that witches were a big issue for a long time, and may well feel that way again given some of the opinions I've seen voiced about angels and such.  Personally, I'd rather deal with germs than witches, but I'm just a helpless romantic.

All my best; and, certainly, respectfully yours,


Bob Kaven
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> WW - 3? eventually?   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors