>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
With her combined charisma, ability to read lines, blissful ignorance of real world events and the ability to do as she's told, she could be a female Reagan. I would imagine the Neo-Cons see much potential in her.


QFT

Coming from the same woman that thought Canada sent troops to fight the Vietcong? Ann doesn't know what she's talking about.

I'd be willing to bet cash money that - baring some unforeseen career ending gaffe - Palin will not only seek the nomination, she may actually get it. With her combined charisma, ability to read lines, blissful ignorance of real world events and the ability to do as she's told, she could be a female Reagan. I would imagine the Neo-Cons see much potential in her.

I always had a special feeling about people that could explain extremely complex goings on, and put them in very stark and simple terms. I think that should be the goal of all human thought and education instead of coming up with complex latin or greek based words that shut people out of learning new things. It's why I appreciate people like Sagan and Chomsky, who strive to put complex world events into something any teenager could grasp.

I don't like the assumption that those of us who don't entertain the selected Conspiracy Theories must then believe the "official story". I don't believe any investigation has yet brought to light everything nor do I think that having a bunch of them would clear it all up. This is an extremely complex world event and people are going to disagree on it no doubt. There is more than two sides to this story.

good to know our 4th branch of government is keeping people informed of important world events

"What I'm trying to say is that a person who IS religious should be aware of what their own faith says about world events"

But what if they belong to one of the religions that isn't the correct one? Should they still be aware of what their religion says about the end of the world, even if it's not true?

I probably don't believe in 'the rapture' as you would define it. What I'm trying to say is that a person who IS religious should be aware of what thier own faith says about world events. The guy in the vid was a terrible representative for religious faith. He sucked both as a man of faith and as a debater.

The basic premise of the argument was that religious influence in America is waning. Well - DUH. The pro-religion guy shouldn't be denying that premise. He should instead have been attempting to explain religious perspective and context on this trend. A religious person should have plenty to say on the subject. What would I have said?

"Yes, certainly the influence of Christianity in America is waning. But I don't agree with Mr. Dawkins that such a decrease is a good thing. Christian religions teach a moral system which encourages improved human behavior. People don't always implement that philosophy well in thier actions. But the precepts of Christianity when followed will bring about increased happiness, and result in a better society. Religion places greater value on the state of a soul than on the state of mortal society. But a person like Mr. Dawkins might agree (in principle) that the positive benefits of a population seeking improved behavior is indeed beneficial."

Statistically, fewer and fewer people seeking to follow Christ-like behavior creates a moral void. The hold is not being filled with alternative philosophies of discipline for self-improvement. Instead it is being replaced by materialism, pop-culture, or nothing at all. That is not an improvement."

A person of real faith views this with the proper perspective, and could tell Dawkins that this negative trend is merely an embodiment of stuff God warned people about hundreds of years ago.

*PROMOTE

Seriously come on. What happened to keeping the site concurrent with world events and shit? WHAT OTHER VIDEO SHARING SITE HAS THIS?

Anyone dissing tony benn on this, seriously you need to fuck off.

He didn't fight through armed guards, he didn't battle his way onto the set, no, what he did was go on the show, and do the right thing. Which is more than any of us can do. Especially you with your fucking "oh well done" attitude, he didn't ask for your approval on a knighthood, dickhead.

"Gee, he is very brave. All of those British people without access to the internet, who can't possibly Google around to find a Palestinian charity."

Comments like that are rediculous. By your logic, why would a charity go on TV and advertise? People can simply google!

And shit, people know about world events taking place, why have news programs? People can google.

Why have ANYTHING when you have google, right!?!?!?

IF you can't work out why what you said is stupid, you're too stupid to take part in a conversation here. Go find a lolcat.

UN Watch is hilarious, it says the coverage in UN is loop sided when it comes to the Israel-Palestine issue, but then goes on to present loop sided arguments itself.

Even though it's charter seeks to address the misbalance in the application of UN powers and try to cover issues outside of Israel-Palestine, it almost exclusively comes out to argue for Israels viewpoints.

Never mind the fact that UN declarations from 60 years past have been shot down by one singular ally and security council member that would have implemented a peaceful resolution.

The UN is a idealized dream that has little baring on real world events any more, condemnations of war crimes and such against Israel didn't stop Israel from continually committing them over the last 60 years! But oooh noo 10 years of Hamas missiles! That is the real threat and problem! Not state sanctioned policy targeting civilians through uniformed armed forces, no no its all them damn guerrillas fighting a resistance movement.

I should mention I read science magazines a lot, and they're set up in a similar way to the sift (content and sifting/editing is nearly free - presenting and sharing content is not). Group licensed memberships, individual membership, some advertising (including job listings that are related to the material), and real world events (conferences) are the bulk of their profits. Its not a completely analogous situation but you could look more into what they do for ideas.

Wow, I never thought I'd live to see Magic the Gathering analogies for major world events.

Biden also talked about how FDR went on TV to talk to the American people during the Great Depression.

He also called Obama the first "clean, articulate" African-American candidate for President.

By this logic, all of Biden's poor choices of words are really Freudian slips about the CFR's orchestration of world events?

FDR had a secret TV network? Jesse Jackson never bathed?

Or...could it mean that the people who wish America harm will generate a crisis to test Obama's response?

>> ^NetRunner:


I Admit I don't know much about what happened in Lebanon post-bombing, but going on that it's a defendable position, although the consequences as can be seen in allowing Hamas to participate and win the Gaza elections can be devastating.

Untied foreign aid to Pakistan was irresponsible but I still can't really see the connection to Bhutto's assassination. I can imagine what you're implying but it sounds tenuous at best to me.

I've always thought of North Korea's nuclear belligerence as a means towards extorting foreign aid, dumping them in the axis of evil and essentially ignoring them certainly didn't help, but their behaviour almost seems inevitable anyway.

I guess I can't really rail against TV personalities rather than supposed unbiased media reporting having biased or selective opinions from ideological standpoints. I guess I'm more annoyed at that there doesn't seem to be a thirst for investigative reporting. People watch the straight out news to learn the facts, but they go to these personalities to grab an actual opinion on the events transpiring. Perhaps it's because people feel they are too pressed for time or lack enough interest to become involved, while modern culture dictates they ought to have a presentable opinion on a variety of world events leaving them with the only seemingly plausible decision of stealing someone else's. Investigative reporting ought to be there so you can make up your opinion based upon the facts at hand, and yes I know I live in my own utopian world, but it damn well doesn't hurt to dream!

Plus television the main source of news nowadays was never made and isn't really plausibly capable of conveying large amounts of facts, so yeah I guess it's basically a pipe dream. Considering that, I can't really argue with Olbermann/Maddow being an inevitable counterweight to the Bill'O's of the world, a 'they started it first' approach isn't exactly ideal but then nobody really wins elections or consensus on culturally divisive issues based upon superior policy or logic. I equally have no doubt that there are plenty of people in positions of power who have no interest in an actual debate and are entirely content funnelling points of view through their television personalities, and would very much like to keep it that way so I agree with much of what you say.

The Republicans have been wrong on most things I agree, but the divide is not just political, it's ideological. I mean you're not going to see the benefits of the free market/invisible hand being argued on Olbermann/Maddow for example.

>> ^misterwight:

Sycophant!

I don't know what your trip is Stali.. the battle of Stalingrad being valiantly fought and won by Russia is taught in World History courses throughout America. Get off your Westerners are oblivious to world events horse.