FallingOsh

My, you seem pretty strong in your conviction on this topic , Andrewwhyte! How about this ;Should the government have the power to invade sovereign nations if they have a "reasonable expectation " that those nations might attack us? Blues, Cliff Now you're getting into a convaluded mess when you start talking about reasonable expectations. Could you arrest someone for murder because they had ak-47's in their house? No. Could you arrest someone for having fully auto ak's? Yes Would the suspicion of auto ak's in the house be reason enough for a warrant to search the house? Yes. Your first question was pretty cut and dried. Then you tried to jump about 9 levels and make it apply to an entirely different situation. Nice troll, again... but completely rediculous. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

I agree with what's been said so far. Why is it that stories about people waiting months to see a doctor in canada or some woman dying while on a cat scan waiting list in Britain are just anecdotal evidence and don't hold any weight, but stories like this are drug out for everyone to cry over? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

According to Pew Research it was fair. It has nothing to do with my opinion. And what "fair" means for Pew Research? From page 1 A study by the respected Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative. On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories—a spread of 59 points. I would expect more negative stories about Stalin than about Mother Teresa - doesn't mean the media are biased. Your argument is devoid of all logic. So McCain is now Stalin and Obama is Mother Teresa? I guess that makes Fox actually wrong for having an equal number of negative stories between the two? You obviously have no qualifications to comment on other peoples' logic. You obviously are unable to comprehend simple written English. Thanks for your usual level of contribution. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

The equal NUMBER of stories is not the same as equal coverage. Look on two headlines: "Californians say they will not vote for McCain" "New facts revealed - Obama is not a natural born citizen, the lawsuit is pending". Both those stories would count as negative to McCain and to Obama respectively, but nobody in their mind would consider them "equal coverage". Right. It's not real research. We've covered that. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

I wouldn't worry about it. The Chicago Sun isn't a real newspaper. Any evidence showing they are a real newspaper is not actually evidence. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

According to Pew Research it was fair. It has nothing to do with my opinion. And what "fair" means for Pew Research? From page 1 A study by the respected Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative. On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories—a spread of 59 points. I would expect more negative stories about Stalin than about Mother Teresa - doesn't mean the media are biased. Your argument is devoid of all logic. So McCain is now Stalin and Obama is Mother Teresa? I guess that makes Fox actually wrong for having an equal number of negative stories between the two? You obviously have no qualifications to comment on other peoples' logic. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Why not? Um, because it's the federal government singling out speech it doesn't like. So just go ahead and ignore the fact you're not reading. They did in fact say Fox isn't a news organization. You refuse to believe that, but they did. They said Fox shouldn't be treated as a news organization because of their views. Tap dance and ignore all you want. It doesn't change their words. So now you're rewriting Fox's goals for them. Well MSNBC's goal is to turn this country into a communist state so they should be shut down. No? Oh Ok. It's just Fox who has evil misleading intentions according to you. They could do that without going on record telling other news channels not to follow Fox because it's not real. That is no ignoring. That's picking a fight because their feelings get hurt when people don't bend over backwards for their agenda. Not according to you. Every news network has some pundit with an opinion and you've said that is not effectively delivering the real news. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Who decided what is negative story, and what is not? I personally know a few people who would consider Obama's promise to not to raise taxes to anyone below 250k (and raise it for everyone else) negative, and for some people this would be positive. Also the stories matter - is it poll report saying that Obama ratings falled 90% during last week in Buttfuck, KY, or yet another conspiracy theory saying Obama is not citizen? Just like I said. You don't like the research so now it's not really research. You don't like Fox news so now it's not real news. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Ok so none of the news networks are news networks since all of them have someone with an opinion. Good. So fuck them. Fuck all of them? Every news channel? You're dancing around the definition of news to try and make it fit your argument. If Fox isn't a news network then neither are the others. Then why did they single out Fox? They didn't say anything about the other networks and opinion shows. They singled out Fox because it's right leaning. Um, yes. They're from the same administration. Note that nobody said it's not news organization at all - just comparing to others, who are providing some real news. That's exactly what you said up there. Try and read before replying. A. Says who? Axelrod? B. If Fox is guilty then the others are guilty. They didn't mention the others because it's not about pushing an agenda. It's about pushing an agenda that disagrees with the administration. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

So the actual number of negative stories was equal for both candidates, but the public perception was that Fox was too hard on Obama. Very interesting. Doesn't prove anything other than public perception is scewed, but still very interesting. Perhaps it's because of the Obama love fest that went on after the primaries and towards the end of the campaigns. Of course any negative media would seem like a lot if the other networks are humping his leg. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

According to Pew Research it was fair. It has nothing to do with my opinion. And what "fair" means for Pew Research? From page 1 A study by the respected Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative. On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories—a spread of 59 points. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Your "fair" just means "matched my opinion", right? According to Pew Research it was fair. It has nothing to do with my opinion. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

The "so what" is that they're bitching and whining because Fox doesn't agree with them. They have a different perspective, therefore they aren't real news. If the administration wanted to make a point about news networks not being real news then they would include MSNBC and the other opinion shows. They aren't doing that. They're just throwing a public temper tantrum. Congratulations. I read several different sources on all sides of the ball. Doesn't change anything. They did say it like that. I watched them say it. It had nothing to do with REAL news or not. Emanuel: "the way the President looks at it and we look at it, it's not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that's a different take. And more importantly is not have the CNNs and the others in the world, basically be led and following Fox as what they're trying to do as legitimate news organization in the sense of both sides and a sense of valued opinion." Axelrod: "It's really not news. It's pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way. " -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

So... Obama is the same as Bush... again. How'd it work out for Bush going after a news organization? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

You extracted every one of those numbers from your hind end. Not only that, but you've clearly ignored the post before yours. During the election, Fox News (and opinion) stories were the fairest of them all. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Which is exactly what MSNBC does for the left... and I'll go ahead and bet my house that not a single person in the administration is going to accuse MSNBC of not being a "legitimate news organization." Emanuel, Axelrod, and Gibbs didn't say anything about manipulating news. They said Fox gives a different persepective and shouldn't be considered a news network, ie; different perspective = not legitimate. It's horseshit. We could easily get into a back and forth about news really being manipulated. I personally think that if Fox's stories were all bullshit then they wouldn't have better ratings than every other news network combined. MSNBC is just as slanted, if not more so, in their programming than Fox and nobody is complaining about that. Why would they? MSNBC humps their legs everynight. It would be silly to call them out for being slanted. If that's the argument you want to go with then fine. I've said several times now that if Fox isn't real news because their view is different then go ahead and nix all of the news networks. That's word for word what Emanuel and Axelrod said. Gibbs played the good little parrot later. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

I don't get why Fox is being accused of entertainment only programming when MSNBC primetime is Maddow and Olberman. I'm sure the President will be out next week saying he'll no longer work with them either, right? Gibbs, Emanuel, and the rest of them are a bunch of whiney pussies that have resorted to completely dismissing an entire news network as 'not real news' because they have a different point of view. Whether you support the administration or not, trying to shutout a media voice will not ever end well. Even pundits on CNN were saying it was rediculous and a very bad idea. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

As much as it aggrivates people, banks are businesses. They aren't charities. Of course they should operate within the law but it's unreasonable to be mad that they're making profits. And then bailed them out... If they behaved that badly then they should've been allowed to fail. And that's the key. Don't sign up for stupid shit you get in the mail. Agreed. It's shitty to think they could suddenly change the rate on current balances. However, and a big however, people who are irresponsible enough to sign a contract and run up thousands worth of debt don't have much room to bitch, IMO. Maybe I'm wrong and lawrocket could help out, but if you sign a contract specifically stating fixed rate with no exceptions then I find it hard to believe you would be unsuccessful taking it to court. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

I think that if you have to resort to dismissing the Nobel committee so one out of hand dismissal of a network, and one out of hand dismissal of a committee seems balanced on speakers corner anyway Depends on whether one would be inclined to equate the Nobel Committee with Fox "News". I think MSNBC would be closer. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Maybe I missed it, but what was the point of this thread? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Gobbledygook? That's what you call the language in a binding legal document that you're signing? Maybe we've found the root of the problem. There will always be a 'least sophisticated' group. The only way to eliminate the potential for someone 'unwittingly' signing a contract is to make it illegal for certain people to attain those priviledges (ie, credit cards). I'm not sure how well that would go over putting a minimum IQ limit on credit card applications. How often does it really happen? For every story like this reported, there are hundreds who have no issues with their credit cards. Is there really any way to say 'this happens so often?' Ok, this bothers me. I'm not defending everything the CC companies do. Credit is a dangerous game, but like it or not, credit companies are indeed companies. They are businesses trying to stay afloat just like everyone else in the country. If they jack their rates up as their contracts allowed, then it sucks... but they're trying to survive the recession, too. Like you said, I don't know the details of the Lane's situation, as the article was fairly vague. On the surface it sounds like a shitty deal for someone who claims to have perfect credit. Bottom line, if you want to avoid situations like this: A. Don't sign something you didn't read or don't understand. B. Don't rack up thousands upon thousands worth of debt. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

So, no timeline would seem to indicate that they are not out of compliance, so long as they allow the inspections to begin on October 25, as scheduled. They were out of compliance by hiding it. They got caught and then scheduled the IAEA visit. If it goes well on October 25th then we can talk about being in compliance. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Because the Nobel committee chose him. Just like the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means, so the Noble Committee decides who wins the prize. Last time I checked, neither the Supreme Court nor the Nobel Committee consults DZ.COM That crap sounds like a dad talking to his kids. "Because I said so... that's why." Never mind listing possible reasons or accomplishments... it's just because the Committee said so... I actually feel a little bad for the President. He sounds like he's embarrassed, which I would be too. "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize," Obama said. And if anyone thinks this wasn't really aimed at Bush (at least in part), from the committee... The award appeared to be at least partly a slap at Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. "Those who were in support of Bush in his belief in war solving problems, on rearmament, and that nuclear weapons play an important role ... probably won't be happy," said Valle, the Nobel Committee member. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

The time deadline is the part being questioned in this discussion. Perhaps you can point out the requirement of when Iran must submit their designs. Without a failure to meet a definitive time deadline, Iran appears to not be in violation of the NPT. There is no timeline. The statements about submitting plans 90 days prior, or whatever, were false. On a related note: The security safeguards talk about a constant flow of information and inspections. Hiding the facility does not comply with that. After October 25th it will be a different discussion. As of now, they are not in compliance since no flow of information was provided and obviously inspections haven't been going on since the site was hidden. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Perhaps you can identify the particular section(s) and paragraph(s) of Article XII: Agency Safeguards of the IAEA Statute of which Iran is in violation. The closest I am seeing is Section A, paragraph 1, of which Iran does not technically appear to be in violation. Holy fuck dude... how much do I need to hold your hand through this. The IAEA safeguards specifically talk about inspections. 1. To examine the design of specialized equipment and facilities, including nuclear reactors, and to approve it only from the view- point of assuring that it will not further any military purpose, that it complies with applicable health and safety standards, and that it will permit effective application of the safeguards provided for in this article; 3. To require the maintenance and production of operating records to assist in ensuring accountability for source and special fissionable materials used or produced in the project or arrangement; 4. To call for and receive progress reports; 5. To approve the means to be used for the chemical processing of irradiated materials solely to ensure that this chemical processing will not lend itself to diversion of materials for military purposes who shall have access at all times to all places and data and to any person who by reason of his occupation deals with materials, equipment, or facilities which are required by this Statute to be safeguarded, Iran has not had any inspections or any accountability for their sites. October 25th is their scheduled IAEA visit and that was only organized after being 'caught.' As of now, they are not in compliance. Maybe after the IAEA visit it will change. I don't know how I could possibly be any more middle of the road on this. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.