Anyone interested in being well informed watches Fixed Noise

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

While it's impossible to be completely prepared for a downturn of this magnitude, we began priming ourselves for a weakening economy earlier last year. We implemented strict cost cutting measures across all our operations. We reduced head count in individual businesses where appropriate and we scaled back on capital expenditures.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/118935-news-corporation-f2q09-qtr-end-12-31-08-earnings-call-transcript?page=3

fair and balanced? Brought tears to my eyes, too. O must have been right there balling those symbols of our country up into wads of disrespect and slam dunking them right in those cans!!!! It just gets me right here ( i )

Oh my Lord, next thing you know they'll be burning their bras - help us Jesus - help us Lord - the self-righteous pleads for your guidance once they remove the lumbar from their own eyes!!!!

I don't think all christians should be lumped together as republicans. There are just as many christian dems as pubs. Having said that though, what pubs call *the base of the party,* which at present seems to be to the far right, are definitely typically hard line christians.

The main problem I have with republicans when it comes to abortion is that they are against abortion and yet also against *welfare.* So, the way I see it is that they want you to have the baby regardless of the fact that you may not be able to take care of it, but are not willing to assist in the care of that child. And yeah, I understand the concept of responsibility, but that only happens in fairy tales. If everyone was responsible we wouldn't be in the economic nightmare we're in right now.

Updated in light of today's news that kangaroo centers, petting zoos and ice cream parlors are included in Homeland Security's list of vulnerable terrorist targets:

If Its Broken, Why Haven't They Fixed It?

Fort Knox is robbed in an unusual way. Burglars break in through an air conditioning vent and shine a laser at the video cameras to blind them. Billions are stolen.

The head of Fort Knox (let's call him the Chief) announces that no one could have foreseen this type of burglary.

The commission investigating the robbery -- stacked with the Chief's business partners and friends -- finds that the break-in was unexpected. The commission makes numerous suggestions on how to thwart similar burglaries by installing motion detectors in the air conditioning vents and main vault.

Independent researchers, however, discover that there have been many previous break-ins at repositories of valuable items where the burglars crawled in through the air conditioning vents and shined lasers at video cameras.

They also discover that the Fort's security system would normally have caught the burglars in the act and alerted the military in time to stop the burglarly, but the system was undergoing a series of safety tests that night -- including some that were similar to what actually occurred -- and so the military assumed that the alarms were part of the test.

There had been safety tests before, but never so many at the same time. The Chief personally scheduled multiple, overlapping tests for the night of the robbery, and then oversaw the operation of the tests and the Fort's reaction to those tests.

Years pass, but the Chief does not follow the commission's recommendations. He fails to install any motion detectors.

That's circumstantial evidence that the Chief was in on the heist. Why? Because if the robbery really had not been foreseeable and if he was innocent, he would have a very strong incentive to install motion detectors to prevent further robberies at the Fort. His personal reputation, the government's reputation, and its gold reserves would all depend on it. You can bet that he'd shore up the Fort's defenses.

Perks

Let's take it a step further: the Chief's personal bank account has suddenly gotten alot bigger after the heist. That helps to prove he was in on it, right? But it also shows that one of the reasons the Chief is leaving the Fort's defenses in a compromised state now is so that additional heists can occur, and he'll get more loot.

9/11

Similarly, the 9-11 Commission -- stacked with cronies of the Bush administration (like executive director Philip Zelikow, who is very close to administration hawk Condoleeza Rice, and steered the Commission away from the most important lines of inquiry) -- found that the attacks were unexpected, despite very strong evidence that they were not, and despite the fact that the government scheduled numerous, overlapping war games for 9/11 -- some involving a plane flying into a building and others involving hijackings.

And while the 9-11 Commission made numerous recommendations on how to prevent future terrorist attacks -- many of them simple and inexpensive to implement -- the Bush administration has failed to do so. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security, instead of protecting vulnerable targets, has instead randomly made up lists which include kangaroo centers, petting zoos and
ice cream parlors as high-priority terrorist threats.

Just like with the Chief, the current administration's failure to make the recommended and preventative changes -- many of them cheap fixes -- despite billions being spent on supposed homeland security, is strong evidence that the administration was in on it.

This is especially true because the administration has recieved so many perks from 9/11: justification for wars in Afghanistan (where a huge oil pipeline benefitting American companies was being held up by the Taliban) and Iraq (one of the world's largest oil producers), permanent military bases in the Middle East, and consolidation of power at home.

And by failing to implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, the administration keeps open the possibility that another terrorist attack will occur which will whip the now-dissenting American public into line, justify the invasion of Iran, and allow for the suspension of our remaining constitutional rights.

The bottom line is that the administration's, like the Chief's, inaction to fix the alleged holes in security which allowed supposedly unforeseeable crimes to occur shows that they are guilty of the crimes, and hope to benefit from additional crimes in the future.

And if foreign terrorists really had carried out 9/11, why is the government using all of its resources spying on innocent people who obviously have never met a terrorist in their life?

You guys really do need to bring in some credible sources. The reality is that companies don't like unions, not because unions put them in a financial hole, but because they cut down on the profit margin (aka CEO wallets). Again, the republican goal is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. This is a perfect example of that. You guys gripe about the CEO payoffs from the 700B bailout, but support an idea (killing unions) that essentially does the same thing.

I work for MQ. If we had had a union for MTs, then we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

and I enjoy the politics of it all, but I am truly very concerned what is going on. How in the world can a man who says he puts "Country First" in such peril? It might be funny if it wasn't so deadly serious. If McPain gets in the WH, will just have a ball with what money we have set aside, maybe go to Alaska and just hope a polar bear comes along and has one good last meal.....lol sort of. LOL.

that President Bush's applauses & Fred Thompson's speech were apparently edited out or ignored from MSLSD (NBC) and CBS. If that's the case, how responsible is that? That's as bad as MQ being the only MTSO out there, period.

Fred Thompson was incredible last PM. I suppose I'll have to dig that one out for those who think the news is on the drive-by channels like these.

That's certainly not to diminish Joe Lieberman's speech. Even when he was running for VP, the GOP wouldn't go "after him," only challenge the issues. He's a perfect example of a liberal who puts country before party. Frankly, it's impossible to dislike the man, regardless of what side he's on.

I've been following the candidates throughout this whole process. O is not going to cure our ills. He will just put us more into debt. I would have loved to hear the crap spewed by BOTH but let's face it. If the O wins and any of his dem affiliates and everything is democratic, there goes the checks and balances; i.e., they can put through any law with smooth sailing and nary a person can undermine it.

Do you understand and see what I'm saying???? Probably not. Let me put it in English....if the O wants to ban guns, it will be done. If the O wants to tax people that earn $1,000 a year (just a supposition), it will be done. If the O wants to tax us to death on health care, it will be done. If he wants us to rely on the government for our income, it will be done.

We need checks and balances so we don't become another Cuba or Russia. Don't you get that? If the dems control everything, there's no way this will be "for the people, of the people" demoncracy. It will be Venezula, Cuba, Russia, China, etc., so called republic and I'm not looking forward to it.

of the truth (which I posted below) and are spreading the "mandatory" myth, which inflames and upsets people.

Obama's programs are inclusive and designed for those who choose to participate for the good of the country, to bring us closer together. If you want no part of that, then, that's your choice, and though I personally think it's sad, it's probably for the best. Either way, it's your CHOICE and is NOT MANDATORY.

What is a little definition? And how is your definition a big definition. Can you provide sources for this categorization?

I am still waiting for the sources of the claim that a liberal poster(s) has stalked a conservative poster(s) at some point. I find this very very intriguing and eagerly await the details!!!