1 of 3
1
If The U.S. Strikes First ?
Posted: 17 February 2005 10:04 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Would the U.S. then,suffer repercussions in the long term, by way of a (possible) nuclear winter? (water, and food chain disturbed,etc)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2005 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

I think we all would.  A nuclear strike would affect the whole world.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2005 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Mount St. Helens errupted with the force of 60 modern day nuclear weapons and it did not cause too much atmospheric trouble. If the US can knock down the attackers weapons (Star Wars) and hit the enemies key weapons sites (missile silos), it might be a quick end to a possible doomsday scenario. But who in their right mind would take on the nuclear might of the US. Take any country right now on the planet, we could make all of their major cities parking lots.

I’m not to worried about that scenario. We know it is coming (book of Revelation) and there is not a thing we can do about it. Just have to make sure your “election” to the faith (Christianity) is secure. God will work everything else out in its time.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2005 03:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

Mt. St. Helens spewed smoke and ash.  Had it been 60 nukes, the pacific northwest would be un-inhabitable for the next 300 years!  No big deal, if you are just waiting around for the rapture.

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2005 03:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

Oh, I forgot, champ, in case of rapture, can I have your car?

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2005 03:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Plus, Mt. St. Helens wasn’t radioactive.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2005 08:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1229
Joined  2004-12-22

It snowed here in texas for the two years after Mt St helens where it doesnt normally snow from the ash in the atmosphere.

The winter after it we got almost 3 inches of snow, and the following winter we got flurries.

Hasnt snowed here since.

so, it did affect quite a big area !!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2005 04:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

First of all, it’s interesting to note that out of the 6 earlier posts here only one is irrational, full of inaccuracies and devoid of any sense . . . I wonder why?

Speaking of a U.S. first strike, we (in Canada) are often reminded that it is the American nuclear missle arsenol that keeps Canada protected. People like Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly have in fact gone as far as to lecture us about not doing our military share and preaching to us about how the American Forces keep Canada safe and could “roll over us” if they wanted to.  Our question is, “Safe from who?” What country or “rogue state” is threatening to “blow Canada off the map?” The only country that we need to fear at the present moment is the United States itself, especially if it is being managed by mental cases like Coulter and O’Reilly.

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2005 01:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

CalZen, why would Canada have to fear the US? I have not seen any data in the media about a possible US attack, nor have I heard of any agressive intentions on our part. Do you know something that we don’t? Please share.

By the way, Canada blocked out Fox News for a time and allowed Al Jazzera to air (even when it was outed as generating propagandist lies against the US military). Talk about irrational!

Speaking of Fox News….it is nice to see the way Fox News has changed the media in the US, and possibly abroad. Before Fox, the local networks, the big 3 networks, the cable news networks, NPR, and just about everybody else, would give a 7 second conservative snippet at the end of a news story. But before doing so, the reporter (or newscaster) would drag the President/Conservatives/Religious point of view through the mud, then bring in a liberal guest such as Ted Kennedy to solidify its view, then you would get the conservative soundbite. Now switch positions with me on this. Would you be offended?

Further, Fox had the audacity to have an EQUAL number of Conservatives on a news panel (no more 5 libs ganging up on 1 Conservative). Fairness and balance…what a novel concept!!

Thank God for Fox News. It exposed the bias of the elite media. Now they are grumbling because they have to play fair or the blogs will out them, the ratings will drop, and they get accused of bias. Also, folks like you,  CalZen, are grumbling because you took the elite media’s slant for so long, this equal time in the media appears illogical to you. (Hey, even Spock would get it…why not you?)

CalZen, would it be ok to just say that Conservatives have their view and libs have their view and leave it at that? Or, are you one of those libs…(or is it “progressive” now?) who is offended at seeing a 50-50 equal share in the media?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2005 02:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

[quote author=“TheChampion”]Thank God for Fox News. It exposed the bias of the elite media.

Since when is Fox News not part of the “elite media”?

I admit to having a soft spot for Fox, but not for any political reason. I’m just wildly entertained by the contrast between their moral high-faultin’ tone, on the one hand, and the way they peddle porn on the other. For example: a few months back, I was checkin’ out their morning show, and got to see their host rant about some moral outrage involving school prayer. Cut To: the weather, with guest host Victoria Zdrock, Penthouse Pet of the Year, who was there to promote her new sex book, and over whom the weatherman was openly drooling.

rolleyes

Couple that with the fact that Fox News is owned by the same family of networks who produce such morally-upright family programming as The O.C. and Who’s Your Daddy?, as well as one of the world’s biggest distributors of satellite porn, and, well, what’s not to love?

A feminist friend of mine once said to me, “pornography is nothing but puritanism with holes cut in the sheets.” I never understood what that meant til I started watching Fox News.

would it be ok to just say that Conservatives have their view and libs have their view and leave it at that?

No, because the facts aren’t always unbiased, and pretending that they are leads to bad journalism. On some issues, the objective facts are going to support “liberal” assertions; on others, it’s going to support “conservative” ones. And objective facts are true whether they support your politics or not; if there’s a conflict between them, then it’s your politics that need to change, not the facts. And the job of journalism is to inform the public of the facts, not flatter one or another set of political biases.

(or is it “progressive” now?)

  It’s always been “progressive,” at least for me; the two words have always been interchangeable amongst those who share that POV, and I have always felt that “progressive” is the more accurate contrast to “conservative.” “Liberal” means open-minded, and I’ve met as many conservatives who fit that definition as I have progressives. ‘Progressive,” however, generally means that we’re interested in a political agenda that creates change and moves forward.

‘Course, that’s not wholly satisfactory as a descriptive term, either, since many policies now identified with American “conservatives” would actually qualify as somewhat “progressive,” in that they seek fundamental change to an old system (such as Social Security).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2005 03:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

Champion, first of all you ask me, “Why would Canada have to fear the U.S.?” - I only have to go back to your previous post for the answer, (these are your thoughts), “Take any country right now on the planet, we could make all of their major cities parking lots.”  I happen to live near a major Canadian city.  And then you say, “I’m not to worried about that scenario. We know it is coming (book of Revelation) . . .”  Now seriously Champion, that worries me - a lot.  Sounds to me like you and your Bushy People are ready for the “bringing on” of the Rapture - and who knows what god is whispering into the ears of George Dubya and his best buds Rumsfeld and Cheney at this very moment?

As for Fox News, most of it is highly opinionated propoganda, sort of like the reporting in Pravda (which means ‘truth’ in English) used to be in the old Soviet Union.  Back in those Cold War days we used to have the extremists on the left (Soviet style communism) pitted against the extremists on the right (American style corporatism), while in the middle were the mainstream liberal views somewhat represented by the major American Media (trying to leave all biases aside and give a balanced view).  Since the collapse of the totalitarian type communist states, the extreme U.S. right has framed its attack on the mainstream liberal center, using slanted journalism and biased reporting to paint the center fair-minded people as leftist extremists.  You see while mainstream liberals are looking for compromise, toleration, acceptance and fairness in social policy, in other words to see how diverse points of view can best get along, the rightist conservatives are just continuing their fight against the enemy (which no longer exists).  That’s how the far right works, it’s whole reason for being is to fight the enemy, to destroy the evil, to silence those who disagree (much the same ideology of the Muslim extremists).  So now they are fighting against the ordinary justice seeking moderates and they are using religious rhetoric to “punch up” their outrageous claims (and to garner support).  Fox News is basically a propoganda machine for this extremist (sometimes fascist) point of view.  You would undoubtedly claim that the Editors/Reporters for Fox News are free and could not be forced to babble the Party line, but just like the Editors/Reporters in Pravda, they happen to agree with the Bush Rapturist line and they get rewarded for towing it so they happily oblige.

Also Champion, Canadian satelite/cable networks did not “block out Fox News for a time” and allow Al Jazeera to broadcast.  What did happen was that our media suppliers did not carry Fox News at all, ever (we did have other American news networks, CNN, CNBC, etc.), and during that period some outlets did, (and continue to ) broadcast Al Jazeera (so that we could see for ourselves what the Arab Media were saying).  However as of a few months ago, most, if not all satelite/cable suppliers have now added Fox News to their lineups.  You make it sould like we cut off Fox and deliberately replaced it with Al Jaz, you probably heard that on the Fox Network as they have a habit of distorting reality so that their nutty perspective is always sustained and legitimized.  It’s all a pack of lies, bits of truth pieced together so that certain ideas are generated - that is not real news.

As far as the equal numbers of conservative views set against equal numbers of liberal views on Fox giving us balance and fairness, that’s ridiculous.  What you need for balance and fairness is some (well, an equal number of)  hard line socialists sitting opposite the right wing(nuts).  Liberals are centrist, they are the agents of dialogue and debate, they are looking for compromise positions between the two extremes so that we all can get along.  When you put these moderate viewpoints against only one of the two extremes, your balance is badly slanted right from the start.

So you are as logical and fair-minded as Mr. Spock??  The only thing you have in common with the Vulcanite is that you both believe in being “beamed up” -  and if that’s what you believe in I can hardly wait to see the souls of your feet wave bye-bye as you disappear into the clouds of the Rapture vapors.  I hope you get his car Pete, I don’t want it!

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2005 06:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

global village idiot: you certainly do not sound like an idiot to me. Glad to hear you have a soft spot for Fox News. I have one for MSNBC. Actually, I watched the Bill Maher show on HBO tonight. He is a riot and terribly funny, one of my favorite shows (don’t tell anyone). Although, I’ve been know to switch the channel when he gets too left wing on me.

Liberal has become a dirty word that leads to election losses. So now everyone is jumping on the progressive bandwagon. We have a new station in Los Angeles, progressive talk radio. However, they are militant left wing, often speaking in extremes. But I find it easier to discuss values and other topics with progressives than liberals. I find liberals staunchly stand on one side of an issue, even when they are wrong. For example, you may hear a liberal politician say an outlandish thing, be called on it by a commentator, and the liberal will not back down. Conservatives have been very measured in the things they have been saying since we beat up on the dems in mid terms, 2002. We can afford to be measured, we’re leading and don’t have to take chances. I can only hope the whole thing does not flip and then a dem gets the white house, the senate, and congress. Who can know for sure?

CanZen: The political commentators are not propagandists because they come right out and claim their political affiliation. It is the journalist who says he/she is not supporting any party and says they are not bias to one side and then seemingly only supports one side (or in some cases, the percentage of their reporting is heavily slanted in one sides’ favor)...these are the ones both you and I have a problem with.

Thanks for the info on the Fox News/Al Jazzera situation. I guess I have to retract my outrage. grin

As for balance and fairness in the media, in this day and age, it is hard to find. Everybody is leaning one way or the other. But that is ok as long as they don’t try to hide it. Dan Rather, can anyone claim that he is not bias against Bush with a straight face. Can anyone not suppress a wry grin and say that 60 Minutes did not want to cause traction against Bush during this previous election? I think not.

Oh, when that blessed event, The Rapture, does occur, if you are unlucky enough to still be around, you don’t want my car? What if I had a Hummer or a Rolls Royce?? Hee hee hee….

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1John 1:9

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2005 07:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

First off, Champ… yes, American liberals are centrist. If you don’t understand how they are, it just reflects the fact that you are too wrapped up in distorted views to recognize the difference. CanZen is right on that score.

A lot of “conservatives” have made careers off attacking a straw-man view of liberals. IME talking to conservatives who know me to be a liberal, they are often surprised at the difference between what I actually believe and what they’ve been told I believe.  A lot of people who are called “liberals” or “leftists” by the right are nowhere close to being either one.

[quote author=“TheChampion”] Conservatives have been very measured in the things they have been saying since we beat up on the dems in mid terms, 2002.

Funny, I hadn’t noticed. Well, OK, some conservatives have been measured… but only the ones who always were. The blowhards have only gotten more bloviatory.

As for balance and fairness in the media, in this day and age, it is hard to find. Everybody is leaning one way or the other.

It is not journalism’s job to be “balanced” or “fair.” It’s their job to be accurate and truthful, regardless whether that’s fair or balanced, or not. Some things are true even if you don’t believe them. This is a concept that a lot of people have trouble getting through their heads (this applies to ideologues of both right and left, to Chomskianity as well as Christianity); just because you see a news report that somehow offends or contradicts your political beliefs, that does not mean it is the news report that’s wrong. It might be you who is dead wrong. Indeed, that’s more often the case, for everyone of every political stripe.

This isn’t to say there’s no bias in the media. No one is unbiased. But the difference between Fox News and other media, as I see it, is that most reporters for other media try to put their own biases aside, whereas Fox reporters don’t (there are exceptions, though, like Brit Hume).

On the other hand, I tend to be dismissive of all claims of ideological bias in the media. The ruling biases in mainstream media are: laziness, sensationalism, and conventional wisdom. There is not, and never was, a liberal bias in the news, and there is not, and never was, a conservative bias, either. Not institutionally.  Reporters these days, especially on TV, tend to just accept pat answers from all interview subjects, and check their claims against conventional wisdom without ever wondering if it’s the conventional wisdom that’s wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2005 07:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

[quote author=“CanZen”]Champion, first of all you ask me, “Why would Canada have to fear the U.S.?” - I only have to go back to your previous post for the answer, (these are your thoughts), “Take any country right now on the planet, we could make all of their major cities parking lots.”  I happen to live near a major Canadian city.  And then you say, “I’m not to worried about that scenario. We know it is coming (book of Revelation) . . .”  Now seriously Champion, that worries me - a lot.  Sounds to me like you and your Bushy People are ready for the “bringing on” of the Rapture - and who knows what god is whispering into the ears of George Dubya and his best buds Rumsfeld and Cheney at this very moment?

Now, just to be “balanced,” I have to say that you have an awfully distorted view of American conservatives if this is how you see them. America’s been through much more reactionary political times than this, and had far more intrusive and dictatorial presidents than Bush.

As for Fox News, most of it is highly opinionated propoganda, sort of like the reporting in Pravda (which means ‘truth’ in English) used to be in the old Soviet Union.

Actually, there is no comparison at all. Although I tend to be suspicious of Fox News, I’d offer you the same advice I offered Champ: maybe it’s you, not Fox News, who are wrong.

Back in those Cold War days we used to have the extremists on the left (Soviet style communism) pitted against the extremists on the right (American style corporatism),

This is also a spurious comparison. The true rightist extremists would be the Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan, neither of whom American “corporatism,” even at its worst, is anywhere close to. And this also lumps left-wing anti-communists (like Norman Thomas) in with the wrong crowd, too.

Also Champion, Canadian satelite/cable networks did not “block out Fox News for a time” and allow Al Jazeera to broadcast.  What did happen was that our media suppliers did not carry Fox News at all, ever (we did have other American news networks, CNN, CNBC, etc.), and during that period some outlets did, (and continue to ) broadcast Al Jazeera (so that we could see for ourselves what the Arab Media were saying).

Al-Jazeera is no less biased than Fox News; indeed, seeing as how it’s subsidized by the Qatari monarchy and credulously reproduces propaganda from authoritarian Arab states, I’d submit that it’s actually far far more biased, and far less trustworthy, than Fox.  I watch Al-Jazeera on the internet, and they are in many ways similar to any other news network… including being a complacent, gullible mouthpiece for government propaganda. It just comes from different governments, and since most of them are totalitarian regimes, what you see and hear on Al-Jazeera is highly unlikely to be the truth.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2005 04:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Hello Champion,

You said>>>We know it is coming (book of Revelation) End quote

In one, or two words only, who wrote that “book?”
(just a name, will do)

Thanks,

 

A.D.

wink

 

I guess I am trying to think in a new way…. one that does not take a snapshot on a fast train and then once it is processed and developed and pictorialized…and then dogmatically and rigidly asert that it is the definitive description of the country being travelled through.

So identifying with the contents of consciousness is as foolish as a whirlpool defining itself as the water passing through. We cannot separate ourselves from the flowing River of Life anymore than a hydrologist can surgically remove a whirlpool from a creek in order to examine it more closely. by A Flyer

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2005 04:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Advocatus Diaboli: Umm, that would be John, an original disciple of Jesus Christ. Written from the island of Platmos.

I presume you will be challenging me on on the book’s author…

Chapter 1 theme: “Write what you have seen”

Chapters 2-3 theme: ‘What is now”

Chapters 4-22 theme: “And what will take place thereafter”

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed