MoreheadEagle

Mostly because of the issues of transporting and disposing the waste products of the process and the large potential loss of life in the event of a major accident or terrorist attack. I would rather conserve our uranium supply and use coal for power generation.

 

If we fail to develop a good alternative to nuclear fission energy before coal supplies begin to dwindle, then the nuclear option would still be available.

 

I have an open mind on the nuclear issue but I am not convinced that the risks outweigh the benefits - at least not yet. Hopefully, fusion or an even more advanced technology will be developed within the next few decades.

I think I agree with you on this particular issue. If we can find a way to store the nuclear waste safely then great but as of right now we don't. I also think clean coal is going to be something that can only help our energy independence and will help KY.

IMO alternative fuels are an option now, but they are so expensive that the price of oil is much cheaper. If the supply dwindles, prices will go up and make the alternative sources become a more practical economically-efficient option, if ya get what I am saying.

 

But I am not encouraging increasing our production. Just saying that is supply does get so low, other options will become available.

Gotcha. I agree that as supply dwindles the alternatives will be more practical. But, in the present I firmly believe that people want to switch to alternatives quickly. Look at how well Toyota has done with their hybrids and they're on the verge of introducing plug-ins that will get double the mileage. American auto makers, for some reason, aren't catching on. I am just concerned about running out of things like medicine, fertilizer, plastics, and everything else. Getting off of oil for energy purposes needs to be priority #1 for security and environmental reasons.

I think what he is saying is that we do not need to worry about decreasing consumption because the petroleum will run out regardless of whether or not we conserve energy within the next few generations, and I assume what he means is that the quicker we deplete the source, the quicker alternative energy sources will be developed and ready for the market.

If we don't conserve then the oil will run out quicker and all the other things we make from it (basically everything we use) will be gone before we find an alternative source. If we conserve and switch to alternate fuel/energy then we can use the remaining time to find other ways of producing all the other stuff we make from oil.

The wife and I stayed in a little cabin just outside of Gatlinburg over spring break. Fontaine Cabin rentals was the company. It wasn't very expensive and I'm probably going to use them from now on.

I'm sorry.

Did I represent anything in my post as any more than my opinion? (No, I did not.) Did I not say that you can find extreme examples in the religious right? (Yes, I did.)

 

The fact that you can find extremists in the religious right does not justify equating millions of people on the religious right to a single racist America hater on the religious left.

You present the OPINION that black liberation theology is racist as fact. I've never seen you qualify your description of black liberation theology as "In my opinion it's racist." There are hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to that particular theology, are they all racist? No. Not all people who are religious conservatives are bigots. The point of the thread IMO, is that Wright is from the same mold as Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Parsley, and a long list of wackos with a pulpit.

You should really take the time to do some hiking while you're there if you're physically able. There are lots of great trails and waterfalls that you can see and still have plenty of time in the evening to do other things. Also, Cherokee NC has a casino and a couple good museums.

It is ridiculous to compare Rev. Wright to the "Religious Right." Wright is among the most offensive examples of what could be described as the "religious left," that includes such "men of the cloth" as Minister Farrakhan, Revs. Jackson and Sharpton, et al.

 

Sure, there are extreme elements in the religious right, but it as unfair to equate Rev. Wright to the entire roster of the religious right as it would be to lump every religious liberal in with Rev. Wright.

 

The brand of Black Liberation Theology espoused by Rev. Wright is a racist, anti-American political movement and Rev. Wright is its poster child. Comparing BLT to a real religion is as unfair as comparing Revs. Jackson, Sharpton, and Wright to real ministers.

In your opinion. I can find lots of hate speech from Hagee, Parsley, Robertson the late Falwell, Ted "I'm not gay" Haggard. They all IMO are part of a bigoted political movement that is full of hatred. I can also find lots of examples of such pastors basically saying the same as Wright b/c the government doesn't do something that we want.

I asked my farmer father in law this question. His answer was "No". I'll stick with that.

Both are very harmful to the their own respective parties, when you look at it from the moderate. That is just my opinion what is yours?

Both are bad and both have basically said the same thing.

I don't think that's true at all. I think the cable news programs are terrible about it and Fox may be the worst.

In newspapers it is the case, I should have qualified that. You're right about cable news and Fox is the worst. I agree.

I rented it and I love it. The graphics are awesome and the gameplay easy to learn. It's a lot more graphic than the previous versions.

How about reporting the news and restricting editorials to the editorial page? Would that work?

Usually that is the case. NPR is still the best and most fair reporting you're going to get in US broadcasts and in this story they did a great job.

Don't bother looking for airbrushed T-shirts...you won't find any. (sarcasm off)

Good for him. I can't imagine how tough it would be to have to go through all college athletes have to deal with and have cancer added to that.

:thumb: Agreed. I can remember when some articles were written without commentary. Candidates' speeches were reported as news and the mainstream media did not feel compelled to refute the positions of candidates whom they opposed.

 

Most reporting on non-liberal presidential candidates is analogous to allowing the prosecution to parade a string of experts in front of the jury while making the defendant keep his or her experts out of the courtroom.

 

It is sad that this kind of biased reporting is apparently being taught in journalism schools. This kind of reporting has always been done but it has not always been taught as good journalism. The media now feels the need to educate misguided conservatives instead of informing them of events and trusting people to draw their own conclusions. We called such reporting propaganda back during the Cold War.

In political coverage the burden is on the candidate to pitch their policy, not the candidate's economic advisors. I don't know how clearer I can be and some are going to see a "liberal bias" anyway so I don't know why I bother. McCain made the pitch and the economist was the opposition opinion. What do you do then? Do you have someone else defend McCain's policy and leave it at that? That would be 2 McCain 1 opposition and biased. If they had interviewed Clinton and Obama and left out the economists then that would still be 2 pro 1 con.

I would wager that if this was a global climate change story and the reporter didn't cited three opposing opinions you would be nominating it for a peabody. NPR did a very good job and once again showed why they are the best broadcast news in the US.

I really don't have an answer to that. IMO the amendment is discriminatory and there could be some loophole that allows this since to my knowledge the amendment only defines marriage. If this is a new policy that allows partners to receive benefits regardless of marital status then I don't see how the amendment applies. It's a new company policy allowing customers to purchase insurance for whomever they please.

If someone is working for the university and getting their money taken out for benefits it should go to whomever they see fit, it's their money. This doesn't just mean homosexual employees but also heterosexual employees who aren't married.

It has nothing to do wiht perspective. The mainstream media did everything they could to ignore the Wright story. Sean Hannity has been screaming about it for over a year. The same with Ayers. The only reason anything negative about Clinton gets reported is because they are so in love with Obama.

:lol: Oh now that's funny. :lol::lol:

We've had probably a total for 4 weeks where the media can't go 30 minutes without talking about it.

Thanks though. You gave me a good laugh for the day.

I certainly hope he stays but he has to do what makes him happy.

Of course you realize the NPR reporters don't have to shout down everyone if they are only interviewing people that agree with the NPR reporters.

 

Look, I'm a fan of NPR. Generally they do a good job, but there is no way that this was a fair piece. No way. Try to defend it all you want, but when you have a piece analyzing a candidate's policy and only present economists disagreeing with it, its not a fair piece.

Will just have to agree to disagree. I'm coming at this from my education in journalism and from what I see, it's a fair story.

Fox News has interviewed Rev. Wright and has extended other invitations for him to return for additional interviews.

 

Would I be correct to assume then, based upon your position on the McCain coverage, that you would defend FNC's coverage of Rev. Wright on the basis that he had presented his positions on the Hannity and Colmes show and has an open invitation to return for additional interviews?

 

Economists like Paul Krugman are McCain's opposition.

No. NPR did one story. A very fair one. The difference with NPR is that they give you a news show, no info-tainment, and they only have an hour to do it. Fox gives 24 hour "coverage" to something and usually only presents one side of the argument. As I stated before if Fox did a story on Clinton's helthcare plan and didn't editorialize it, and showed someone who disagreed and left it at that then that would be great. What all cable news does is give us some information and then has post-game analysis to tell us what to think.

The problem with Fox, and to a lesser extent the other cable news programs, is they frame the interview to one side. Hannity is well-known for not letting guests answer questions and then shouting them down when they give an answer he doesn't like. Add that to Fox's 24 hour Rev Wright insanity coverage, panel discussions that are made up of just conservatives, and inserting editorial comments into the text of what is supposed to be a news story and you have the US version of Pravda.

Politicians are not economic experts for the most part. McCain consults with his economic advisors then makes his pitch as a politician, not an economist. Fair reporting requires an objective analysis of the plan by experts. When the media presents only an opposing view, they are acting as an advocate - not as a reporter - which I believe is the point Leatherneck is making.

McCain is giving his pitch and the media was showing one opposing view. It's fair. If you had McCain, opposition, pro-McCain then it would require yet another opposition.

So you are saying then that if Fox only interviewed economists and third parties "experts" that disagreed with the policy positions of Obama and Clinton, you would feel it is a bang up job of reporting. Wow. Heck, I'd disagree with Fox in a heart beat for doing such.

If Fox did a story on the Clinton healthcare plan and not thrown in editorial comments during the text of the story (something Fox is bad about doing) and then said "some economists disagree" and showed a quote from an economist I would have no problem. That's fair journalism.

Active duty troops aren't supposed to give political opinions. It's an ethical issue.