jackson33

rigney; I don't know, having been involved with more than a few of these "mutual agreements", both as an employee and employer. As a guess, I'd say Soros's or one of his of "activist" groups has put the pressure on Roger Ailes or maybe Murdock and both do need access, Soros can provide. Remember both Soros and Murdock do a good deal of business in Europe and Beck as been exposing Soros activities. Anyway he (Beck) does still have his 8M (weekly) audience on Radio and other outlets. There might be a family security issue involved as well and he has had these problems in the past. Phil; I think you'll find up to 25% of any audience (Liberal or Conservative) are listeners/viewers to programs they hate, but want to know what the opposition is saying. Anyway Beck was not and has never claimed to be a "News Source", purely opinion.

Looks as though, I was wrong.... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-cnn-beck-leaving-fox-show,0,7768227.htmlstory

I guess you all are talking about Scott Roader, who was sentenced to 50 years, without parole, he is 50 yo, by his own peers. I'm not sure how this relates to Radical Muslims in conjunction with at least 60+ different terrorist organizations (on US Terrorist list), unless your calling all anti-abortion folks equal to those terrorist, but I hardly think terrorist are interested in saving anything. That's kind of like calling all Conservatives terrorist, because one person killed a Liberal (pick out a reason)...there not related. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/01/Abortion-doctor-killer-gets-Hard-50-term/UPI-90691270123404/ In one poll, twenty percent of Muslims feel suicide bombing of CIVILIANS (emphasized for another thread), 25% of Muslims under 30 years old agree is justifiable and this group is IN THE US. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010044.php

lemur; What Bush said in 2001, was premature to the eventual outcomes of his future efforts and has been used by everyone, later denouncing both his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I took it then and remain convinced, he was pleading with Muslim Societies around the World to help stop these minor elements in THEIR societies from creating further havoc on the world, less than 2 weeks after 911 and to a US Congress. In changing the course of American Policy, from criminal acts, to acts of war and a sincere effort to get the Afghan Government to apprehend and extradite "the Taliban leaders". If the Afghan Government, had simply complied, no less than the US would have if the circumstances had been reversed, a whole lot of things would be different today. Factually since; In poll after poll in the Muslim world or with in Muslim Communities in Democratic States, great percentages of Muslims have said, they supported to some degree bin Laden and other groups, throwing in Sharia it has often gone above 50%. For instance in 2007, six years AFTER 911, in Afghanistan who is supposedly helping our coalition, bin Laden still had a 46% approval rating (much more than Bush then had and 5% above Obama's current rate), al Qaeda 43% and even the Taliban had a 38% approval rating. http://articles.cnn.com/2007-09-11/politics/poll.pakistanis_1_approval-rating-poll-qaeda?_s=PM:POLITICS Personally I really don't like getting involved in these discussions, since I honestly feel Muslims could get along within other societies and do feel the polls are somewhat disingenuous being only males in many place are even allowed to speak. In Israel for instance Muslims and the JEWISH, in the State seem to get along just fine. About a quarter of Israel's Citizens are of Arab decent. Did you know there are Mosque in Israel, but in most Muslim States there are no Synagogue's or Temples.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

rigney; I don't have the time to go over six/seven years of posting, but the same folks that fought everything religious in American Government was/is on par with the end of time. Yet whenever the Muslim Religion is mentioned, which is practiced BY MOST of the 1.5B people, it's perfectly fine if religion is not only intolerant of other cultures, is BASED ON SHARIA principles. Those being the interpretations of the societies chief clergy, the "imam". That is, not only are the cultures decided, but the laws and the enforcement of those laws are decided by one or a few of the entire society. I think you probably already know, but the French Government and believe the British Governments, which have been trying to incorporate the Muslim Culture's (plural an understatement), have decalared multi-culteralism HAS BEEN A FAILURE. lemur, while neither did rigey or the link mention terrorism, rather extreme cultural differences, maybe on the video some reference to blind adherence to a FAITH, we are not in an apparent World War with anyone I'm aware of other than Islamic Terrorist. There are again 1.5B people claiming Muslim as their faith and that's fine, but how many are actively trying to get the radicals in their flock, under control. One religious nutcase in Florida, burns a Koran, which is perfectly legal under US Law and over half of media jumps on his case, while no one particularly cared a full shipment of Bibles was burned in Saudi Arabia in 2009. CP; Local terrorism has nothing to do with what either the "Muslim Brotherhood" or maybe 50 Muslim Terrorist Oriented Groups who have declared is a Worldwide movement to bring down, what's nothing more than a cultural, legal, Governing SYSTEM. The correct argument here, would be that ALL religions in years long gone by, practiced the same policies, but only one is, in part, still hung up in a 15th Century mentality.

By golly rigney, it has almost been a year and 830 post. I think it's a little late for either of us to make an impact on Science, but sometimes even the simplest of suggestions can light up the minds of the young. That's a challenge I would gratefully accept.

michel; I agree that Galileo had a great mind for the period of time he lived and this is why he was picked out as an example, but acceptance of his ideas were not wildly accepted...

Simply defined a Civilian is a nonmilitary citizen of a State. Whether you call them protestors, agitators, extremist or rebels, for this discussion they would be classified 'citizens', no less than those not fighting the current Libyian Government, IMO. I don't know Libyan Law, but even under Sharia (possible more so), rebellion against a leader, must be illegal. It's the State Law, not international that defines law breakers in a State. In the US under the 1st A, we can rebel, protest or do most anything against the Government or the officials, but CANNOT intentionally break other law, city, State or Federal... Under UN authority, humanitarian offenses can be used for actions, but since the UN has no enforcement power in itself, others by agreement can enforce their resolutions. What would make this legal IMO, under international law, is that a Government can't indiscriminately kill it's citizens for any purpose. In this case, I have not seen any indication this has been going on from the Libyan Government, though widely speculated. For an example, you might read up on the Waco Siege incident, where 76 people (including 24 British Nationals) were killed, because they would not summit to a search warrant. Since I'm already in trouble for these comments, based on this administration word's, they seem to embellish truth with "saved the Country from the worst depression ever", "saved or created (3-4 or more) millions of jobs" (many others) and now "saved the Libyan people from untold' human carnage. Even today, if we're being correctly told, the US has used 150+ Missiles on a Country, without killing civilians and will walk away from any further military involvement (some auxiliary assistance) and "we have saved lives". What great leadership, the US is showing the World... I was trying to form some possible future headlines the other day and a came up with a couple ideas, "Bush Wars deny Obama his due right to claim victory in Seven Day War in Libya" and "Banning/Wikileaks Assange, forced Libyan Actions"...We'll see, but they may have already over used this tactic. That was shortly after hearing a WH spokesman say the Bush Taxes didn't work under Bush, but are working under the Obama extension.

Marat, when the electorate votes for R or D, in their district their voting for an electorate to represent them. The two electorates representing the two Senators are determined by the individual States. None of those electorates are bound to vote for who the people had chose, though this has rarely happen and never determined an election. The electoral count in December, is done by the parties and in January, before the old Congress adjourns, they ratify/certify those party counts, technically then the Candidate become the Candidate Elect. It's my opinion that until that certification, the election returns are "pending results" and would be void if somehow both the P & VP happen to die. I base this on another premise, that being if the President dies, the accepted pick by the Presidential Candidate (one persons choice), then would become the President, though the team had never been ratified. The link provides other scenarios, I disagree until ratification has been made official. After that certification and since the House would choose the President in the event of a tied electoral count anyway and his/her choice for VP, the ascension process would then be valid, not before....

porkfried; I don't think you need a scientist, but maybe a psychologist. What were you thinking, leaving $2,000 laying around in your room in the first place, then inviting a person your not very friendly with into your room. Top this off and you apparently haven't told your parents or this event could have been handled by your local police. I'm also noting every sentence in you post started with "I", which indicates a problem and nobody is going to advise how to get yourself jailed or sent to some reform school. In summary, I suggest this is a made up story and your looking for pen pals...

Since Libyan Rebels are in fact civilians, aren't you denying any Government from putting down an armed rebellion? Seems to me the War being waged on Quaddafi's forces and indirectly his followers is a pure play in the political arena. There are now "said" 12-15 of the Government Staff, that have been paid off and are granted exile in Great Britain. If it's not political and the Quaddafi Regime is the target, why are they allowed in GB. Anything classified illegal done by the Government, under any law I've ever studied, makes them accomplices... Why am I getting a gut feeling the same people that opposed Bush/Iraq, now support Obama/Libya (especially the Media). Obama said Qaddafi must go, at least a half dozen times, changing his "words" (not his mind) to fit both public opinion and the UN Resolution. What other reason, than regime change or maybe oil (French/GB), could we have...he had already given up his biological and nuclear weapons programs and was threatening NO ONE. Personally, I think he (Obama) feels the public will vindicate his actions IF Quaddafi is remove or killed, based on the Lockerbie Bombing and the release of the only person ever convicted, Magrhi. If I'm correct and he is killed or dethroned, we'll hear all about it for months leading into the elections or if not I'll give him a 50-50 change for not even being the Democratic Nominee.

If after the election and Senate ratification of those elections, both the President and VP die from whatever cause before inauguration, the line of succession would be followed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession Here is how the experts explain the situation, but IMO if the elections had not been held, the elections could be voided, in total, the process again followed for the party involved...

CR; I'll be happy to discuss any Countries humanitarian needs and would probably agree on half, that the US and/or the UN are trying to assist. Somalia has always been a basket case, probably will be for a long time or at least until they try to educate their young. They are predominantly Arab, Sunni, have tried to incorporate Sharia with their English Legal System (not working well), but I have a hard time justifying any meaningful assistance for a Nation that all but condones piracy.... So you don't lose track of my point, if I felt the "rebels" were in fact Libyan's (I think international radicals, more applies) and in fact represented a majority or even a large percentage of the people wanting to create democratic rule or some form of majority rules NOT opposed to Israels existance and Western Societies in general, I'd be the first to promote UN actions. I simply don't see it that way and think most the current unrest is based on a few taking advanage of the situation to bring in "Muslim/Sharia" influance...as in Iran.

CR; I'm finding it very difficult, appearing to be defending Gaddafi, since the accusations used by US media, including Reagan's and his reasoning for actions, but the hypocrisy of my Government from one month to the next (toleration/cooperation) to actual promotion of rebellion based on seen weakness is a little difficult for me to accept. If the same "attitude" or actions were offered the Iranian's a couple months ago, or to Syria today, it might make sense, but still not necessarily a matter of US National Security. The same arguments were made in backing the Egyptian rebellion whose vital attitudes on both Israel and at least a sense of "secular" government, seem to have been forgotten. Israel is currently at risk, as well as control of the Suez Cannel. Additionally I find the said excuse "for humanitarian reason" absurd in a world full of leaders/governments that seem to have no interest other than power/control over their population or some religious, around the world and the US is not and can not police thousands of years of corrupted societies. Sooner or later, somebody best realize this issue and problem cause, IS religion and some societies for whatever reason are willing to be governed in this manner. According to the UN, the worst countries, based on "humanitarian" problems are 1- Somalia, 2- Chad, 3-Sudan, 4- Zimbabwe, 5- Congo 6- Afghanistan, 19- North Korea (I feel the worst) 32- Iran 34- Lebanon 48- Syria 49- Egypt and Libya didn't even make the op 60. http://www.news-world.us/pics/2010/08/22/60-worst-countries-in-the-world/ I don't want to get into "political rhetoric", but IMO we're hearing too much double talk (contradictable) from our Government and Media on just what and why thing are being said. Some may be lost in translation, I'm not sure, but there is no indication the people in Tripoli and I feel a majority of them are pro-Gaddifi are actually being armed and the idea militants are some how civilians (opposed to a military) and somehow deserve protection from the worlds powers, IMO defies common sense.