Fixed news strikes again...LOL (sm)

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.

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

is that you instantly assume that Fox is the only one who reported on it, therefore making this not true. Here are some links that have nothing to do with Fox that also reported on this incident. The view points are from both sides as to whether covering up the symbol was right or wrong. But you should seriously think before you post. Your ignorance is showing.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m4d17-Georgetown-covered-religious-symbols-for-Obamas-speech

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Jesus-Missing-From-Obamas-Georgetown-Speech.html

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?

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

A propanganda machine for repubs. No one is obligated to appear on that network. There are plenty of other media outlets. Fox's ratings are dropping and MSNC's are climbing. Fox disguises these facts by including their entertainment ratings in with their "news" ratings. As far as ALL OTHER MEDIA being liberal, that is a transparent technique to keep viewers from getting opinions from ANY OTHER source than Fox. I certainly wouldn't fall for that bunko. I also notice that they concentrate on certain sites such as Media Matters and NY Times specifically because those sites are excellent at presenting the truth about distorted information disseminated by the propaganda machine. To each his own.

Sorry, I'm conservative, but have to ask why you would go down that road when you can find those answers yourself.

Might I suggest worldnetdaily.com, townhall.com, drudgereport.com, breitbart.com, talk radio (and the hosts' web sites, including Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Savage, Levin, Michelle Malkin, Rush, etc.). There are countless news stories that never make the mainstream media.

Another thing to consider is who a person keeps for company. When questionable names keep coming up (Pflager, Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, etc.), that would concern me if I were considering any kind of relationship with someone, but that's just me.

Those who support Obama get their news from MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and so on. Those networks alone have been proven repeatedly to be biased. All the times that McCain went abroad, where were Couric, Gibson, and Williams? Why would any American think that the Democrats, who are determined to reinstate Fairness Doctrine, think that it won't come back and bite them? Why should any American be silenced just because one group disagrees with another?

Lastly, a couple more stats. The #1 most liberal Senator is Obama. Kennedy is #2, Biden is #3. Even the moderate Democrats are distancing themselves from him. This info is documented and not fiction.

You have more options now than anytime in history to gather information. You can gather information from both sides of the issue and verify the facts and then make your own decision based on your personal values.

Israel is getting ready to invade Gaza and is already in the process of bombing raids. Meanwhile the current US administration (aka Bush/Condi/Cheney/etc) is perpetuating the lies about Gaza, such as who is the real terrorist, ignoring a legitimate democratically elected council, etc. The OP explains all this. Bottom line is that the US is giving Israel a green light, which to some of us (as well as a large portion of the world) is condoning genocide.