Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
35,301 - 35,320 of 45,839 Comments Last updated 21 min ago
JBH

Delta, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37595
Aug 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The catch-22 of powerful countries is there has to be some point where the media can be controlled. China has it down to a fine art form. But in democracies these days it tends to be owned by less competitors & driven by the likes of Murdoch & co. Then the news you get may be filtered by a political bent or exchanging favours for those in high office. The integrity of journalism gets compromised, as was highlighted dramatically in Britain. So sites like Wikileaks need to be around otherwise we would never know what goes on. However whistle blowers should only get protection if they are exposing crime or illegal activity otherwise it's their own actions that are criminal. Things like the BP oil spill, Chernobyl, the nuke meltdown in Japan go through damage control first before the public gets to know the real story. The US learnt it's lesson from Vietnam where journalists were filing stories on the nightly news that was fuelling the anti war lobby. So when Iraq came along everything was staged managed with tight control on what reporters could or could not do. Aljazeera gave the other side of the story with those so called smart bombs only taking out the bad guys you never saw. This infuriated the likes of Rumsfield & co & seriously thought about targeting their headquarters in the middle east, so it highlights the power of the media if not controlled.
==========

After Snowden was granted asylum by Russia, there was somewhere that Wikileaks issued some short statements which looked pretty good.
At this time, there are few nations, and obviously people around the world too, that sites like Wikileaks is a problem, except US.

There you go, if sites like Wikileaks can be providing interesting (as freedom to know) of information for people worldwide and let people make their own judgment, that sounds a fair deal.
JBH

Delta, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37596
Aug 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

#+()_+)(*)

People around the world don't feel that sites like Wikileaks is a problem, except US.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37597
Aug 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

JBH wrote:
#+()_+)(*)
People around the world don't feel that sites like Wikileaks is a problem, except US.
I can see why the US admin has a problem with Wikileaks and most other democratic free countries. It's mainly because of the freedom the west has, so most of the leaks will come from those countries.
The fear of retaliation is much less, not just for the whistle blower but for his or her family. As a result you won't see many stories break on corruption in China or Russia for instance by a whistle blower. The reason is obvious, because the response goes way beyond the individual. When countries tend to filter news and even sites like Wikileaks would have to be very brave to break a major story on Russia or China for example. The response would be with black-ops not in the court rooms unless they felt world wide exposure might give them some sort of protection, however I doubt it.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37598
Aug 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
My point about Olbermann and MSNBC wasn't about whether FISA is right or wrong, it's about how it is portrayed in the media. When MSNBC reported on it during the Bush years, it was fascist. Do you hear anyone on MSNBC calling Obama a fascist? He continued the monitoring and even expanded it. Whether or not you think it is okay is not the issue. It's how it was reported. You claim Al Jazeera is non-biased, but yet you don't show how Dave Marash quit in 2008 due to Al Jazeera's anti-American slant or the reporters who quit in 2012 due to bias in the Syria coverage or the reporters who quit in 2013 due to Al Jazeera's bias towards the Muslim Brotherhood. You also don't show how the majority of the American Media slants stories to change policy all the time, prime example is the total monopolizing of all news to show that a Hispanic male shooting a black male is somehow white rage and laws much be changed. But then not reporting things like McDonald versus Chicago in which a black man was denied a permit for a gun to protect himself in his crime-ridden neighborhood. You bring up Murdoch but yet don't bring up that until very recently GE owned NBC and the CEO of NBC was an adviser to Obama and that GE did very well in profits while not paying any taxes in 2010. How is that you preach objectivity, but don't even do it yourself.
Aljazeera only came about because BBC pulled out of the middle east around the time of the first gulf war. So a rich Arab sheik pulled most of those employees from the BBC to start the Aljazeera network. Of course they would have bias if they felt America and it's allies had no real reason to be in Iraq. They sure as hell would not be promoting the US admin line on justifying the war.
The fact that Bin Laden would send his video messages to that network meant they had the choice of airing it or discarding it. I wonder if he had of sent them to Fox news instead if they would have kept it under wraps. As for the Muslim brotherhood, it was the ONLY political organisation Egypt has that was well established. After all only 15% of Egypt population is Christian. Of course they won't be ignored,same as the Palestine political organisations. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they don't exist. As for the GE's and Apple's of this world, under the current system of government & taxation those companies will always thrive no matter who is in power. It's not Obama giving them a free lunch it's everyone that was before him.
It's next to impossible to stop corruption in power while you can't stop the flow of money directed to political organisations. One hand feeds the other. You single out the shooting that was part of a media campaign, well so was the school massacre. It got world wide coverage for weeks and did anything change in the gun laws in America, NOTHING, ZIP, ZERO. Which shows that entrenched cultural practices even if it belongs to an era 200 yrs past will never change some peoples mind. Climate change is one of those things, it's the same as science proving that God doesn't exist. How many would believe it ?
Anthony

Patiala, India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37599
Aug 4, 2013
 
Nice post . Thank. i ll must share it .
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37600
Aug 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Aljazeera only came about because BBC pulled out of the middle east around the time of the first gulf war. So a rich Arab sheik pulled most of those employees from the BBC to start the Aljazeera network. Of course they would have bias if they felt America and it's allies had no real reason to be in Iraq. They sure as hell would not be promoting the US admin line on justifying the war.
The fact that Bin Laden would send his video messages to that network meant they had the choice of airing it or discarding it. I wonder if he had of sent them to Fox news instead if they would have kept it under wraps. As for the Muslim brotherhood, it was the ONLY political organisation Egypt has that was well established. After all only 15% of Egypt population is Christian. Of course they won't be ignored,same as the Palestine political organisations. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they don't exist. As for the GE's and Apple's of this world, under the current system of government & taxation those companies will always thrive no matter who is in power. It's not Obama giving them a free lunch it's everyone that was before him.
It's next to impossible to stop corruption in power while you can't stop the flow of money directed to political organisations. One hand feeds the other. You single out the shooting that was part of a media campaign, well so was the school massacre. It got world wide coverage for weeks and did anything change in the gun laws in America, NOTHING, ZIP, ZERO. Which shows that entrenched cultural practices even if it belongs to an era 200 yrs past will never change some peoples mind. Climate change is one of those things, it's the same as science proving that God doesn't exist. How many would believe it ?
You are so all over the place in this post. I have no idea what Bin Laden tapes or Christians have to do with the reporters from Al Jazeera quitting because of bias from the network. What does my personal opinion have anything to do with the reporters themselves quitting because of bias? They are the ones who said Al Jazeera aired lies and misled viewers.

I have no idea where you get your news, but where in the world did you read that there was NOTHING, ZIP, ZERO changes in gun laws since the all-encompassing coverage of the school massacre? Here are the states that have passed tougher gun laws since the media coverage: Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New York and pending bills in the states of California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37601
Aug 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so all over the place in this post. I have no idea what Bin Laden tapes or Christians have to do with the reporters from Al Jazeera quitting because of bias from the network. What does my personal opinion have anything to do with the reporters themselves quitting because of bias? They are the ones who said Al Jazeera aired lies and misled viewers.
I have no idea where you get your news, but where in the world did you read that there was NOTHING, ZIP, ZERO changes in gun laws since the all-encompassing coverage of the school massacre? Here are the states that have passed tougher gun laws since the media coverage: Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New York and pending bills in the states of California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota.
Hey I only responded to what was in your post, you mentioned the Al Jazerra reporters quitting, but failed to mention their Egyptian office was closed down by the military. It's all part of a political game that is being played out there. Biased reporting will only be biased if you are on the other side. But facts are 80% of the population are Muslim, so one would figure the brotherhood would play a large part in the political make-up.

As for the gun laws, those are mostly all democratic states you mentioned. For any gun laws to be truly effective it has to be at the federal level not state.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37602
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, the corporations and banks do control a good amount of the media. That is one of the most frightening things about our democratic form of government. If we do not get the unbiased facts, how are we going to make good decisions? The Murdoch bunch is undoubtedly more biased than most, however we do need more independent news sources. The National Enquirer sensationalist news and the poisoning by the extreme left and right wing media is undoubtedly harming our country.
The internet is a good possibility but the news sources are controlled by the organized sources like API etc. Mostly the internet simply rehashes junk from these sources. Of all the boogie men that FOX News presents, they fail to mention how the major corporations and banks are controlling the media.
NPR and PBS have both gone into this deeply. I am more apt to follow them than other sources. Of course the biased conservatives claim that they are liberal. I suppose by their definition, they are. But they are much less biased than the cons are.
What broadcast network has reported that banks and corporations control the media? Are you saying Fox is the only outlet that hasn't reported that? Really, you need to get over your obsession with Fox. They are no different than MSNBC except that 55% of Fox programming is opinion while 85% of MSNBC's programming is opinion. You just don't agree with the opinions on Fox, so that equals bad.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37603
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey I only responded to what was in your post, you mentioned the Al Jazerra reporters quitting, but failed to mention their Egyptian office was closed down by the military. It's all part of a political game that is being played out there. Biased reporting will only be biased if you are on the other side. But facts are 80% of the population are Muslim, so one would figure the brotherhood would play a large part in the political make-up.
As for the gun laws, those are mostly all democratic states you mentioned. For any gun laws to be truly effective it has to be at the federal level not state.
About the gun laws, you said NOTHING was done. The media coverage did accomplish change in laws. You can't backtrack and tell me states don't count.

No one is saying that the Muslim Brotherhood wouldn't play a large part of the reporting, what the reporters quit over was the biased reporting and like I said reporters have also quit over the bias reporting on Syria and then the reporter who quit over anti-American bias. So there is a pattern here.

http://gulfnews.com/news/region/egypt/al-jaze...

Since: Mar 09

Laguna Niguel, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37604
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What broadcast network has reported that banks and corporations control the media? Are you saying Fox is the only outlet that hasn't reported that? Really, you need to get over your obsession with Fox. They are no different than MSNBC except that 55% of Fox programming is opinion while 85% of MSNBC's programming is opinion. You just don't agree with the opinions on Fox, so that equals bad.
No I didn't say that FOX was the ONLY one. I said that NPR and PBS did report such. However, the FOX Fawners tout how FOX presents the real news. So much for "fair and balanced".

I simply said that banks and corporations have strings attached to the mass media. FOX included > Get over it.
chisholm

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37605
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Skillfully argued my good man!
Perhaps the most compelling defense of the AGW belief system to date :-)
Almost as clever as your lengthy dissertation above on pots and kettles..
chisholm

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37606
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What broadcast network has reported that banks and corporations control the media? Are you saying Fox is the only outlet that hasn't reported that? Really, you need to get over your obsession with Fox. They are no different than MSNBC except that 55% of Fox programming is opinion while 85% of MSNBC's programming is opinion. You just don't agree with the opinions on Fox, so that equals bad.
Although you offer (as usual) no support for your claimed percentages, I suspect they're backward. MSNBC isn't openly a supporter of a major political party and its extremist wing, as Fox is.

And I suspect that MSNBC = bad to you, so isn't that also a bit hypocritical?:)
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37607
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
Although you offer (as usual) no support for your claimed percentages, I suspect they're backward. MSNBC isn't openly a supporter of a major political party and its extremist wing, as Fox is.
And I suspect that MSNBC = bad to you, so isn't that also a bit hypocritical?:)
It would be hypocritical if I was on here injecting MSNBC in my posts. It is others on here who for some unknown reason keep injecting Fox, Rush, and Beck and also Christianity. I'm only commenting that ideology and bias is from both sides. So it seems ridiculous to me to keep bringing up how Fox is biased without also slamming the other side for the same thing.

But here are the numbers for MSNBC and Fox and CNN from Pew Research and a few other articles that claim the exact opposite of your statement that MSNBC is not an open supporter of a major political party and this coming from democrats.

Pew Research:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/201...

From the Huffington Post, an article from a former MSNBC producer/media critic:

Headline: How Do You Know When President Obama is Lying? MSNBC Wonít Tell You.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-cohen/how-...

From another article:
ďInstead of becoming a news outlet capable of acting as a government watchdog, MSNBC is hamstrung by its hiring of liberal pundits, such as Chris Matthews, who gets a ďthrill up his legĒ when the president speaks and progressive news anchors who spend their time vexing over the appropriate title for Obama.Ē

http://www.policymic.com/articles/30581/rache...

David Shuster: "When you're too predictably a mouthpiece for the administration and you cast your lot with the president's performance, there's a risk," said David Shuster, who left the network for Current TV when his contract expired in 2011. He pointed to Fox's higher production values as one of the reasons for the conservative network's ongoing ratings dominance lead and the high-brow nature of MSNBC's prime time lineup as one of the reasons for its most recent decline.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/what-...

MSNBC has long been as bad as Fox News when it comes to ideological bias. But with the hiring of longtime Team Obama loyalists David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, itís official: MSNBC is worse. The cable channel that flies under the banner of NBC News is now all but a bona fide organ of state propaganda, an information channel that speaks in the same dominant voice as the folks running the government -- and tries to mask what it is up to.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/...

chisholm

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37608
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be hypocritical if I was on here injecting MSNBC in my posts. It is others on here who for some unknown reason keep injecting Fox, Rush, and Beck and also Christianity. I'm only commenting that ideology and bias is from both sides. So it seems ridiculous to me to keep bringing up how Fox is biased without also slamming the other side for the same thing.
But here are the numbers for MSNBC and Fox and CNN from Pew Research and a few other articles that claim the exact opposite of your statement that MSNBC is not an open supporter of a major political party and this coming from democrats.
Pew Research:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/201...
From the Huffington Post, an article from a former MSNBC producer/media critic:
Headline: How Do You Know When President Obama is Lying? MSNBC Wonít Tell You.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-cohen/how-...
From another article:
ďInstead of becoming a news outlet capable of acting as a government watchdog, MSNBC is hamstrung by its hiring of liberal pundits, such as Chris Matthews, who gets a ďthrill up his legĒ when the president speaks and progressive news anchors who spend their time vexing over the appropriate title for Obama.Ē
http://www.policymic.com/articles/30581/rache...
David Shuster: "When you're too predictably a mouthpiece for the administration and you cast your lot with the president's performance, there's a risk," said David Shuster, who left the network for Current TV when his contract expired in 2011. He pointed to Fox's higher production values as one of the reasons for the conservative network's ongoing ratings dominance lead and the high-brow nature of MSNBC's prime time lineup as one of the reasons for its most recent decline.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/what-...
MSNBC has long been as bad as Fox News when it comes to ideological bias. But with the hiring of longtime Team Obama loyalists David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, itís official: MSNBC is worse. The cable channel that flies under the banner of NBC News is now all but a bona fide organ of state propaganda, an information channel that speaks in the same dominant voice as the folks running the government -- and tries to mask what it is up to.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/...
The post I'm citing mentions MSNBC prominently, I don't care who mentioned them FIRST. You attack MSNBC for the same things you complain others are attacking Fox for - and that's hypocrisy, sorry. This post of yours is also full of attacks on MSNBC, as if they were the problem with the media or the country.

"All but a bona fide organ of government?" Heh...try Fox News contributing to the Republican Governors or putting up graphics which suggest that they both sponsor and cover Tea Party events, hon. You're just doing the typical 'I know you are but what am I??' thing I see from the Righties all the time.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37609
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
The post I'm citing mentions MSNBC prominently, I don't care who mentioned them FIRST. You attack MSNBC for the same things you complain others are attacking Fox for - and that's hypocrisy, sorry. This post of yours is also full of attacks on MSNBC, as if they were the problem with the media or the country.
"All but a bona fide organ of government?" Heh...try Fox News contributing to the Republican Governors or putting up graphics which suggest that they both sponsor and cover Tea Party events, hon. You're just doing the typical 'I know you are but what am I??' thing I see from the Righties all the time.
So let me get this straight, some posters on here claim that the problem with media is that they are controlled by banks and corporations, which leads them to biased reporting. Then to prove it they post the example of Fox News and they claim it is the worst. No other network is identified by name as being a problem. So I post it is not only Fox News, but MSNBC is a major network that has biased reporting. Somehow in your mind, I am hypocritical to responding to their statements. So of course my post mentions MSNBC, only because I am showing the bias goes both ways. I never claimed Fox is not biased. I really don't care what MSNBC airs or what Fox airs. I know who they are and what side they lean to. Both sides are getting their views across, but for some unknown reason, it really makes some of you angry if MSNBC is called out for who they are, the mouthpiece for the democrat party. There's nothing wrong with that, just own up to it. Iím not attacking MSNBC. I didnít write the articles I posted. I'm not the one who said MSNBC is a bona fide organ of the government. I didnít do the research that Pew put out. Iím not sure what the difference is between Fox covering Tea Party events and MSNBC Ed Shultz broadcasting with the unions against the governors of Wisconsin and Ohio. Or that Fox gave to the Republican governors and senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC gave to democratic candidates. Who cares? They are who they are.

But back to what you said:ďAlthough you offer (as usual) no support for your claimed percentages, I suspect they're backward. MSNBC isn't openly a supporter of a major political party and its extremist wing, as Fox is.Ē

You suspected wrong and maybe it is you that really has no clue due to your warped ideology. I havenít quite figured you out. You hate Fox for being biased, but yet canít admit that MSNBC is biased. You hate the IMF/World Bank and corporations because they ruin developing nations, but yet you promote international regulations which go through the exact organizations you hate.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37610
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What broadcast network has reported that banks and corporations control the media? Are you saying Fox is the only outlet that hasn't reported that? Really, you need to get over your obsession with Fox. They are no different than MSNBC except that 55% of Fox programming is opinion while 85% of MSNBC's programming is opinion. You just don't agree with the opinions on Fox, so that equals bad.
There is a HUGE difference between a individual reporters bias on a certain story and a FULL ON network of bias such as Fox. Can you name on story since Obama has been in office that was positive to his administration. They even wanted to take the credit elsewhere for getting Bin Laden. MNSBC have done negative stories on Obama but did target Romney during the election campaign.
In my view to have a media lic you must show ethics of good reporting and the Murdoch organisation has displayed anything but good moral ethics. Just google it and see some of the things he has done and is still doing right now. There is not much point having a newspaper or media organisation that is a 24 hr advertisement for one view of the political spectrum. That's not being informed its full on propaganda. Now you ask yourself is this a fit and proper person to hold a media lic using the same checks and balances that one would have to go through to say get a casino lic for instance.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/11/2...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federa...
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37611
Aug 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The Earth is warming.

It's real.

It's happening.

It's us.

We can do something about it.

Just returned from the Climate Reality Project Leadership training in Chicago last week. The above is our mantra. Call it religion, if you want. It's the truth.

Anyone who denies the four statements above is either abysmally ignorant, incredibly naive, a bald-faced liar, a pail shill, or all of the above.

Let the games begin....
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37612
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
In my view to have a media lic you must show ethics of good reporting and the Murdoch organisation has displayed anything but good moral ethics. Just google it and see some of the things he has done and is still doing right now. There is not much point having a newspaper or media organisation that is a 24 hr advertisement for one view of the political spectrum. That's not being informed its full on propaganda. Now you ask yourself is this a fit and proper person to hold a media lic using the same checks and balances that one would have to go through to say get a casino lic for instance.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/11/2...
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federa...
I would love to have a country where moral ethics were held in high regard. That is my wish, but the reality proves otherwise. If there is one thing we all know is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Corruption is blind and it permeates throughout all of man from personal life to politics to media to science. In no way do I defend Murdoch in his actions. He is immoral. That being said, it is hard to find someone to look up to who is not immoral. There are things I believe in and I hold true to those beliefs, one of those being that the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect us from the absolute power. When I posted the clip of Olbermann calling Bush a fascist, I posted it because I believe that to be true. I believe Bush was grabbing power away from us and placing it into the vast Federal government, thus chipping away at our freedoms. I believe in order for us to retain power, the constitution, especially the first and second amendments are vital to that success. Thatís not outdated, thatís a truth. So when Obama comes out as George Bush on steroids, the same people who called Bush a fascist are now defending his actions and it goes both ways; people who were ok with Bush taking away our freedoms are now blasting Obama. Something is wrong with this picture. We are sheep. We follow a party without thinking for ourselves.

I have come to the conclusion that Occupy is right on the banks, the libertarians are right on the wars, and the Tea Party is right on limited government. Now if I could just meld these into a party, I would love that. But instead the sheep keep voting for the same people over and over blindly believing everything they say and expecting different results. We are so screwed that we have perverts running for office who have no shame or embarrassment for their actions and we have people who will vote for them. So I do realize Murdoch is immoral, but that doesnít mean that what is said by some of the people on Fox is not true, just as what some of the people say on MSNBC is not true. I donít have a problem with MSNBC or Fox airing their views. What I donít like is some people telling others not to watch or listen to something with a different view than their own. We squash free thinking and debate when we attack the people sending out information instead of listening to what each is saying. I always teach my children, donít believe everything you see or hear, research it, then decide.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37613
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

gcaveman1 wrote:
The Earth is warming.
It's real.
It's happening.
It's us.
We can do something about it.
Just returned from the Climate Reality Project Leadership training in Chicago last week. The above is our mantra. Call it religion, if you want. It's the truth.
Anyone who denies the four statements above is either abysmally ignorant, incredibly naive, a bald-faced liar, a pail shill, or all of the above.
Let the games begin....
See what I mean Ozritz...squashing debate. Science has been corrupted.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37614
Aug 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

I forgot I wanted to post this youtube video that really shows how we are sheep and that it is not really about what we believe in, but instead it's all about the party. This is why we are screwed. I do have to say there were a couple of people in the video, who may have had their eyes opened.

Obama Supporters Hate His Policies.(The video maker did not support Romney or Obama, just to let you know)

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

70 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Grey Ghost 1,082,280
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 min Learn to Read 174,936
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 18 min OnlyPatchWork 68,051
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 2 hr Hatti_Hollerand 473
Amy 7-28 2 hr Sublime1 16
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr Eric 68,396
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 4 hr Terry rigsby 48,944
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 8 hr Mister Tonka 97,562
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Cook County was issued at July 28 at 2:52PM CDT

•••
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••