Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Are for profit universities a threat to a degrees credibility?
Recently I was researching graduate schools online and was bombarded with calls from schools I never thought about attending. Since getting into these school seemed way too easy (especially for graduate school) I did some research. All I found was rip off reports, unsatisfied students, and employers saying not only would they not reimburse these schools but they wouldn't hire anyone from them either. Do you think these schools are making employers more critical causing them to not hire people from Universities they are unfamiliar with?|||In many cases yes, employers are giving preference to those who graduate from traditional universities (even if the degrees were given online) over those from the for-profit schools. Some don't care, but to others it is clearly important.|||There are various studies of the institutes and its ranking. you should go according to that there are many institute who give degree in exchange for money which has no value in industry so you should go as per the reputation of the institute from all parameter particularly the placement record
Can you have any credibility in waging war on moral grounds but only when you choose to?
Having a moral duty is either that or it isnt. It is not a matter of convenience or selective policy. Either you defend those oppressed or you do not.
How can the President defend his actions based on moral grounds of preventing possible massacres when there are massacres we sponsor, Yemen and Bahrain for example, going on at the same time, let alone the ones all over the world that we ignore.|||im going to have to find out how you can morally kill people so i can finally get rid of that nosy *** neighbor of mine.|||Right on, and we of the United States stand by and let the Jews massacre the Palestinians, also the destruction of Beirut by Israel, and do nothing but send them more money to kill more civilians.
Anyone that claims we have the moral high ground is nuts.|||do not believe of what they Tell you, all this excuses are to cover their self and nothing ells. the Priscilla is something ell, the oil, oil......
How can the President defend his actions based on moral grounds of preventing possible massacres when there are massacres we sponsor, Yemen and Bahrain for example, going on at the same time, let alone the ones all over the world that we ignore.|||im going to have to find out how you can morally kill people so i can finally get rid of that nosy *** neighbor of mine.|||Right on, and we of the United States stand by and let the Jews massacre the Palestinians, also the destruction of Beirut by Israel, and do nothing but send them more money to kill more civilians.
Anyone that claims we have the moral high ground is nuts.|||do not believe of what they Tell you, all this excuses are to cover their self and nothing ells. the Priscilla is something ell, the oil, oil......
Why does a famous person saying something lend it credibility?
I've seen a lot of quotes over the years misattributed to Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, etc. Why does something suddenly become wise or insightful because a famous person says it? Shouldn't a statement stand on its own two legs?|||It's because the person who is quoted has achieved greatness and/or are known for their wisdom and for their expertise in the said field. Also by quoting someone, we have the advantage of not being questioned by someone, since those words were from someone great/popular.
If quoting someone is used as a counter-argument, it *could* be what people call a logical fallacy, particularly the "appeal to authority" variety of it.
Description of Appeal to Authority --
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.|||einstien was a genius so why not listen to him
If quoting someone is used as a counter-argument, it *could* be what people call a logical fallacy, particularly the "appeal to authority" variety of it.
Description of Appeal to Authority --
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.|||einstien was a genius so why not listen to him
How do gimmick matches effect a wrestler's credibility?
BQ: Do you consider any of the WS users, your friends? If so, who?|||I think gimmick matches mostly have a negative effect on a wrestlers credibility, being good at a gimmick match gets you more noticed by the fans but takes away from your actual wrestling skills. It doesn't matter who you are if the thing you are known for most is a gimmick match your wrestling skills are overshadowed by that.
Obviously being good at a wide range of gimmick matches is to a wrestlers advantages, like Triple H or not the fact he works most gimmick matches IS to his advantage because it gives his feuds a much needed variety that others don't quite have. Being good at the big "blow off" gimmick match at the end of a feud is really good if you want to stay at the top long term you need to be able to end feuds in more than one way. Compare Triple H's gimmick match variety to Jeff Hardy's, it doesn't matter how you spin it Jeff Hardy feuds will ALWAYS end with a ladder match or TLC match or if we are really lucky, some kind of hardcore match. It might be that Jeff hasn't had the chance to do all the different gimmick matches but its still not in his favour everyone wants to see him in a ladder match.
It can also lead to a wrestler getting a "spot monkey" label, sorry to use him again but Jeff Hardy's good wrestling matches are completely forgotten compared to him jumping off ladders and as such the wrestling he can do is completely overlooked. There is no doubt gimmick matches are needed but being known for one type is reputation damaging, being good at all types of gimmick matches can make a long term main eventer.
BQ: I Hate Everyone... EVERYONE!!!!
Nah i do consider some WS users friends... pretty sure they know who they are and i'm not boosting there ego's by naming them... don't like them that much.|||Well I guess some gimmick matches could be a positive to the wrestler's credibility.
I mean if the gimmick match become their speciality it could really be a positive especially when ending a feud.
An example is The Undertaker vs Edge in SummerSlam 2008.
We all know that's gonna be huge because of this being Taker's speciality match so it added more credibility no only to Taker but also for this match and apperantly also the whole event.
Edge vs Cena Vengeance 2007/6(I think)
This also got Cena credibility knowing Edge is an expert in TLC matches.
So when he won he got mor credibility without even hurting Edge's image if it's regarding the TLC match.
And as usual it also carried the tension that Edge might win(we all knew back then that Cena would win)
It added that little excitement that also made the PPV exciting.
But then if the wrestler is in too many gimmick matches it's just gonna hurt the credibility.
It's becase of how people would expect the same thing from you everytime and if it's not done then it wouldn't be labeled a good match.
Look at CZW I mean they had shown people getting thrown off to a balcony to a table or lightbulbs getting used as a weapons the fans just gets numb to it like-"Oh he gets hit by a lightbulb he'll live"
BQ:
Well those f煤ckerz in the chat|||Well in some ways I think it can help and hurt a career at the same time. It can make you famous, but at the same time leave people wondering if you can do it without the toys and then doubt you're wrestling skills.
The person I'm going to use to prove this is the "Extreme Enigma" Jeff Hardy. His whole career has been overshadowed by Extreme Rules, Steel Cage, Tables, and his two specialtys, TLC and Ladder matches. Lets be honest here, if it wasn't for those matches Jeff probably would be jobbing. He has above average wrestling skills at best.
But heres the thing, even if you don't like Jeff, which I do, you can not say without lieing that the guy can't perform when he has tools to play with. He has COUNTLESS great ladder and TLC matches.
TLC 1 2 and 3
RVD vs Jeff Hardy Ladder Match
Undertaker vs. Jeff Hardy Ladder match
Edge and Christian vs. Hardy Boyz
Triangle Ladder Match Dudleyz vs. Hardyz vs. E %26amp; C
Jeff Hardy vs. Edge
All AMAZING matches. Theres a few I left out but I think I got my point across. He can perform in ladder matches.
There is another way these matches helped his career. Do you think Jeff would have most of his fans if he didn't jump off ladders? I don't think so. There are some true Jeff Hardy marks but most just like him because they think liking him makes them cool cuz hes extreme.
Overall, I think it helped Jeffs career. Without ladders, he would just be another Joey Mercury. He would not have won world titles, or probably any titles if he didn't put his life on the line. Although it gained him a lot of haters, Overall Ladders were good for Jeffs career.
BQ: Yes I do, most people in YWSE. Everyone except UY and Jesh, who I havent got to know yet. So far hes an aquatince.|||well it depends there are many examples of being a gimmick style wrestler that makes it better for them. Then there are some where its worse for them.
One big example is undertaker for it being good. If you really look through his career in the 90s his best matches were gimmick matches which got him very very over with the fans and as popular as he is today really. Even though he is a good wrestler in non gimmick matches if he didnt shine so well in gimmick matches i dont think he would be as popular as he is today with it and would be considered by the fans to be less then what he is. Because alot of wwe only fans are gimmick match crazy. So him being in alot helped him get over more imo.
Edge i another example of it being good. He has been in many great gimmick matches he is like taker. Awesome in gimmicks and can wrestle in non gimmick matches good also. And him being in those tlc matches got him over big time. The thing is he was able to back it up with great wrestling in 2002 - 2006. It has gotten a little worse the past few years in regular matches. But he can still do gimmick matches great, example his feud with taker the tlc match and the hell in a cell great matches.
Bad examples that negatively affect a wrestler one example jeff hardy. He puts on good gimmick matches but hes to much into it. His in ring work when not in gimmick matches is lets just say a little below average. So he used getting over in gimmick matches to much for the iwc where he went to being hated on(myself included). IMO he just relys on putting on great gimmick matches to much while he is letting his regular wrestling fall to the way side over the past 3 years.
Another bad example is really some of the ecw originals that were the hardcore specialists only, they became garbage wrestlers because that was all they could do is beat someone with a chair. Not everyone in ecw was like that but there were quite a few who were. Also czw is like that but 10 times worse. Its all about death matches and beating the crap out of another wrestler with a flourescent lightbulb really, so any wrestler associated with that now usually just gets discredited when there are some good wrestlers that are there its just to gimmick focused and its to much garbage wrestling
BQ: yes i do and its alot, alot of people in efeds i have met|||I think it can actually help a wrestler's credibility, it shows they can be tough. I don't think Edge would be as popular as he is today if it wasn't for TLC, same with The Hardy's and Christian.
BQ: I've never actually met any of the users on here, I would really have to meet them in person before I could consider one a friend.|||I believe it might. In a wrestler麓s gimmick match, he is almost destined to win, but this is not always the case. For example, Abyss does not win most of his Destruction Ball matches, Undertaker does win a lot of his Casket matches.
BQ: I consider some WS user my friends, I guess I would have to say Jesh and Kurt Angle.|||yeah i consider few of the users but can't disclose. few are my contacts in yahoo answers.
well about the gimmick the attitude era used to give good gimmicks but these 3rd generation superstars mm........ not so good . take taker, kane unmasked ,dx , austin and many more but now. take funaki, festus, priceless, cryme time etc. wwe has realy gone down just because of this pg era. few people think it's because of cena. do you agree?|||Depending on how well they perform in the match it gives them more name recognition. For instance, when people think of ladder matches they think of guys like Jeff Hardy and Shawn Michaels. When they think of Hell in a Cell matches they think of guys like The Undertaker.
BQ: I don't consider anyone here my friend since I don't know anybody.|||Well for some yes, but for other's, without them they'd be no where. Examples of that are Edge and Jeff Hardy. I'm not saying Edge couldn't wrestle but those TLC matches is really what put him in the main spotlight in WWE. Jeff's extreme style also shot him into stardom with the WWE and the fans.
BQ: Sandy, Shawn (BCC), Luke, Brendan (WBHF), Emily (Mrs. Paparazzi), Justin (rkolegacy), Melvin (Da D3aDmAn), Jason (Lionhart Chris Jericho), Matt (Matt Swagger), Dana (Lita B!tchez), Sabrina (Fizzllama), Jen (Out of control Diva) and a few others I can't think of right now.|||it depends if a wrestler has made a his success in match eg. jeff hardy ladder.than yes because if he has a bad ladder match everybody says he can't wrestle in the ladder match anymore.|||I dunno
BQ:A Few, my friends make occasional apprences in this section.|||stereotypes them? mick foley- i jus never took him too seriously after a while.|||well to me it dont really it dont|||idk
bq: ummmm i dunno really, ya i gess the nice ones|||name a gimmick match and ill tell u
BQ nope|||It all depends how it goes down the road, If the fans like it, WWE will build on it.
Festus has a bad gimmick. An example of a good gimmick would be Undertaker and Kane
Obviously being good at a wide range of gimmick matches is to a wrestlers advantages, like Triple H or not the fact he works most gimmick matches IS to his advantage because it gives his feuds a much needed variety that others don't quite have. Being good at the big "blow off" gimmick match at the end of a feud is really good if you want to stay at the top long term you need to be able to end feuds in more than one way. Compare Triple H's gimmick match variety to Jeff Hardy's, it doesn't matter how you spin it Jeff Hardy feuds will ALWAYS end with a ladder match or TLC match or if we are really lucky, some kind of hardcore match. It might be that Jeff hasn't had the chance to do all the different gimmick matches but its still not in his favour everyone wants to see him in a ladder match.
It can also lead to a wrestler getting a "spot monkey" label, sorry to use him again but Jeff Hardy's good wrestling matches are completely forgotten compared to him jumping off ladders and as such the wrestling he can do is completely overlooked. There is no doubt gimmick matches are needed but being known for one type is reputation damaging, being good at all types of gimmick matches can make a long term main eventer.
BQ: I Hate Everyone... EVERYONE!!!!
Nah i do consider some WS users friends... pretty sure they know who they are and i'm not boosting there ego's by naming them... don't like them that much.|||Well I guess some gimmick matches could be a positive to the wrestler's credibility.
I mean if the gimmick match become their speciality it could really be a positive especially when ending a feud.
An example is The Undertaker vs Edge in SummerSlam 2008.
We all know that's gonna be huge because of this being Taker's speciality match so it added more credibility no only to Taker but also for this match and apperantly also the whole event.
Edge vs Cena Vengeance 2007/6(I think)
This also got Cena credibility knowing Edge is an expert in TLC matches.
So when he won he got mor credibility without even hurting Edge's image if it's regarding the TLC match.
And as usual it also carried the tension that Edge might win(we all knew back then that Cena would win)
It added that little excitement that also made the PPV exciting.
But then if the wrestler is in too many gimmick matches it's just gonna hurt the credibility.
It's becase of how people would expect the same thing from you everytime and if it's not done then it wouldn't be labeled a good match.
Look at CZW I mean they had shown people getting thrown off to a balcony to a table or lightbulbs getting used as a weapons the fans just gets numb to it like-"Oh he gets hit by a lightbulb he'll live"
BQ:
Well those f煤ckerz in the chat|||Well in some ways I think it can help and hurt a career at the same time. It can make you famous, but at the same time leave people wondering if you can do it without the toys and then doubt you're wrestling skills.
The person I'm going to use to prove this is the "Extreme Enigma" Jeff Hardy. His whole career has been overshadowed by Extreme Rules, Steel Cage, Tables, and his two specialtys, TLC and Ladder matches. Lets be honest here, if it wasn't for those matches Jeff probably would be jobbing. He has above average wrestling skills at best.
But heres the thing, even if you don't like Jeff, which I do, you can not say without lieing that the guy can't perform when he has tools to play with. He has COUNTLESS great ladder and TLC matches.
TLC 1 2 and 3
RVD vs Jeff Hardy Ladder Match
Undertaker vs. Jeff Hardy Ladder match
Edge and Christian vs. Hardy Boyz
Triangle Ladder Match Dudleyz vs. Hardyz vs. E %26amp; C
Jeff Hardy vs. Edge
All AMAZING matches. Theres a few I left out but I think I got my point across. He can perform in ladder matches.
There is another way these matches helped his career. Do you think Jeff would have most of his fans if he didn't jump off ladders? I don't think so. There are some true Jeff Hardy marks but most just like him because they think liking him makes them cool cuz hes extreme.
Overall, I think it helped Jeffs career. Without ladders, he would just be another Joey Mercury. He would not have won world titles, or probably any titles if he didn't put his life on the line. Although it gained him a lot of haters, Overall Ladders were good for Jeffs career.
BQ: Yes I do, most people in YWSE. Everyone except UY and Jesh, who I havent got to know yet. So far hes an aquatince.|||well it depends there are many examples of being a gimmick style wrestler that makes it better for them. Then there are some where its worse for them.
One big example is undertaker for it being good. If you really look through his career in the 90s his best matches were gimmick matches which got him very very over with the fans and as popular as he is today really. Even though he is a good wrestler in non gimmick matches if he didnt shine so well in gimmick matches i dont think he would be as popular as he is today with it and would be considered by the fans to be less then what he is. Because alot of wwe only fans are gimmick match crazy. So him being in alot helped him get over more imo.
Edge i another example of it being good. He has been in many great gimmick matches he is like taker. Awesome in gimmicks and can wrestle in non gimmick matches good also. And him being in those tlc matches got him over big time. The thing is he was able to back it up with great wrestling in 2002 - 2006. It has gotten a little worse the past few years in regular matches. But he can still do gimmick matches great, example his feud with taker the tlc match and the hell in a cell great matches.
Bad examples that negatively affect a wrestler one example jeff hardy. He puts on good gimmick matches but hes to much into it. His in ring work when not in gimmick matches is lets just say a little below average. So he used getting over in gimmick matches to much for the iwc where he went to being hated on(myself included). IMO he just relys on putting on great gimmick matches to much while he is letting his regular wrestling fall to the way side over the past 3 years.
Another bad example is really some of the ecw originals that were the hardcore specialists only, they became garbage wrestlers because that was all they could do is beat someone with a chair. Not everyone in ecw was like that but there were quite a few who were. Also czw is like that but 10 times worse. Its all about death matches and beating the crap out of another wrestler with a flourescent lightbulb really, so any wrestler associated with that now usually just gets discredited when there are some good wrestlers that are there its just to gimmick focused and its to much garbage wrestling
BQ: yes i do and its alot, alot of people in efeds i have met|||I think it can actually help a wrestler's credibility, it shows they can be tough. I don't think Edge would be as popular as he is today if it wasn't for TLC, same with The Hardy's and Christian.
BQ: I've never actually met any of the users on here, I would really have to meet them in person before I could consider one a friend.|||I believe it might. In a wrestler麓s gimmick match, he is almost destined to win, but this is not always the case. For example, Abyss does not win most of his Destruction Ball matches, Undertaker does win a lot of his Casket matches.
BQ: I consider some WS user my friends, I guess I would have to say Jesh and Kurt Angle.|||yeah i consider few of the users but can't disclose. few are my contacts in yahoo answers.
well about the gimmick the attitude era used to give good gimmicks but these 3rd generation superstars mm........ not so good . take taker, kane unmasked ,dx , austin and many more but now. take funaki, festus, priceless, cryme time etc. wwe has realy gone down just because of this pg era. few people think it's because of cena. do you agree?|||Depending on how well they perform in the match it gives them more name recognition. For instance, when people think of ladder matches they think of guys like Jeff Hardy and Shawn Michaels. When they think of Hell in a Cell matches they think of guys like The Undertaker.
BQ: I don't consider anyone here my friend since I don't know anybody.|||Well for some yes, but for other's, without them they'd be no where. Examples of that are Edge and Jeff Hardy. I'm not saying Edge couldn't wrestle but those TLC matches is really what put him in the main spotlight in WWE. Jeff's extreme style also shot him into stardom with the WWE and the fans.
BQ: Sandy, Shawn (BCC), Luke, Brendan (WBHF), Emily (Mrs. Paparazzi), Justin (rkolegacy), Melvin (Da D3aDmAn), Jason (Lionhart Chris Jericho), Matt (Matt Swagger), Dana (Lita B!tchez), Sabrina (Fizzllama), Jen (Out of control Diva) and a few others I can't think of right now.|||it depends if a wrestler has made a his success in match eg. jeff hardy ladder.than yes because if he has a bad ladder match everybody says he can't wrestle in the ladder match anymore.|||I dunno
BQ:A Few, my friends make occasional apprences in this section.|||stereotypes them? mick foley- i jus never took him too seriously after a while.|||well to me it dont really it dont|||idk
bq: ummmm i dunno really, ya i gess the nice ones|||name a gimmick match and ill tell u
BQ nope|||It all depends how it goes down the road, If the fans like it, WWE will build on it.
Festus has a bad gimmick. An example of a good gimmick would be Undertaker and Kane
Why does a famous person saying something lend it credibility?
I've seen a lot of quotes over the years misattributed to Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, etc. Why does something suddenly become wise or insightful because a famous person says it? Shouldn't a statement stand on its own two legs?|||If the legs that an answer stands on are a crooked lie, then the answer shall not stand. If a statement is widely recognized then there is much less chance that it will be debated to be a falsehood by most people. Moreover, if the person who is making the statement is widely recognized to be an honest and upstanding citizen whose contributions are of prior value to the human race then their words carry the weight of association with their deeds.|||Simple thought processes. Albert Einstein was smart. Smart people say smart things. If Einstein said something, and he was smart, the quote must be smart. Sigmund Freud postulated that all this stuff goes on in your subconscious mind. Would you trust someone guessing that it will rain, or a weatherman saying that precipitation is inevitable?
Does Obama have any credibility playing the religious card for government run health care?
Escalating the sending of thousands of young men to kill and die in Afghanistan but we're supposed to belief he's had a moral epiphany?|||He has tons more than any conservative you can name! Afghanistan was the war that we should have finished in the first place. They were the ones hiding Al-Queda. Obama is finishing what Bush did not because he went into a war in Iraq bases on lies. Conservatives have nothing to protest health care with except for lies and false hoods. If you want a real debate on it then you better start using real facts. As I see it now the Democrats are just going to pass a bill without them, and a public option will be in it. Conservatives spent there time lying when they could have used it debating the facts. Now it is like Barney Frank said...it is like debating the Dining Room Table.....Why waste our time. We think it is right and we elected Obama to do what WE want not what a bunch of Conservatives failures want.|||Oh noes he's sending people to the country we actually had a reason to be in, what a bad man!|||No, you're right. He's a fraud. His moral epiphany ends with rhetoric. He's a complete sham. He uses populist rhetoric to SOUND progressive, but he's nothing but a corporate shill. His religiosity is just another bone for the right.|||None what so ever!|||Credibility is a term that cannot be applied to Obama under even the most extreme circumstances in any topic with the exception of masterful use of the teleprompter.|||LOL and lets have more abortions. The government will pay for them.|||Bush started the Afghan mess dummy. Obama is doing his best. If he were president on 9/11 there might not have been a war at all. Who knows? Bush effed things up for everyone for a long time to come.|||I'll believe that one when he does whatsoever to the least of his brothers, such as the one in Kenya. What a hypocrite.|||Obama is the most pro abortion president in history, making this man as immoral as they come. Absolutely not, he doesn't have one iota of credibility. God bless.|||Sure, and Rev.Wright is the holiest of them all. It is the moral obligation of the government health care system to decide for the people what is good for them, how much their remaining years
is worth and to hand the reins to Pelosi and Reid to decide for
them.|||Yes. Jesus would not want the under five death rate that the US has to be present in the worlds richest and most powerful nation.
FACT - Insurance companies in the USA admit to pushing up prices, buying politicians and not paying out claims when they should
FACT - PER PERSON the USA spends more on healthcare than any other nation on the planet
FACT - Obama debated his plans before the election for healthcare
FACT - the chance of a child under five of dying in the USA is greater than industrialised nations with universal health coverage
FACT - Obama was elected by the American people to bring in change
FACT - Obama wants to stop insurance companies from screwing the American people
FACT - The reforms Obama wants work in the Netherlands and in Switzerland
And with Afghanistan, it is send troops there or fail.|||His was truly low-class move. It certainly did not persuade me.|||Where is the ACLU (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union) screaming about a nonexistent "separation of church and state"? This just shows how shallow the support for socialist medicine has gotten when Comrade Obama has to resort to religion to advance an unconstitutional political plot.|||What's a religious card, and how does one play it?|||When has he attempted to play the religious card?
What -IS- a religious card?|||Only if you are NAIVE, STUPID, or a LIBERAL HACK!! He is such the Emperor with NO clothes if ever I have seen one.|||Obama would have to have some religious credibility in order for Obama have any credibility playing the religious card for government run health care.
Semper Fi|||You hypocrits can't have things both ways. You either label our democratically elected president "Hitler" or you try to say he is "too religious"...when neither one is true.
President Obama is a church-going fellow (remember those among you who criticized the pastor at his Chicago church?) and so is his entire family, but he is also a Constitutional scholar and believes firmly in the Constitutional provision of separation of powers (something his predecessor routinely violated to the huge detriment of the U.S.). What he was attempting to accomplish with the conference call that involved religious leaders is to say that we are one family, the UNITED States of America (as in his first speech at the Kerry-Edwards convention). Cult-evangelical churches have been trying to overthrow out government from within (Goldberg, 2006; Sharlet, 2008) and almost succeeded under Bush/Cheney; however, by involving ALL denominations (not just the cult-fake-"Christians" who have infiltrated our government as domestic terrorists with the intent of overthrow) in the health care debate, he undermined the fundamentalists who have taken command and control of the GOP by lessening their concentrated influence in Washington and around the nation.
The war in Afghanistan was being waged during Bush/Cheney years beginning in October 2001. Iraq was an illegal war for which the Bush administration should be put on trial as war criminals; however, the attempt to capture Osama bin Laden under Bush/Cheney meant going to war in Afghanistan, where the poppy fields/heroin trade funds al Qaida and the Taliban offers training and shelter. If you were paying attention to the news in recent months, the Taliban had moved dangerously close to Pakistan's capital city (where Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is), and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton persuaded Congress and the White House to involve the Pakistan government in pushing the Taliban back over the border into Afghanistan. On advice of his new Commanding Officer in Afghanistan, President Obama has beefed up our troops and equipment, has had the troops eliminate many of the poppy fields to eliminate a funding source, secured permission to fly equipment, weapons, and troops through Russian airspace to expedite deployment, and has been working with the Pakistani army to keep the Taliban contained. This is a National Security Issue. If you are a big "Bible-thumper" which I am not usually, I believe there is a passage that reads, "There is a time for all things", is there not? We have had about 113 deaths in Afghanistan, as compared to the illegal war by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowicz et al., where 5.468 American soldiers have died and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis...
President Obama is trying to DO HIS JOB and PROTECT the U.S.! All during the campaign he kept saying that he would put more troops into Afghanistan in order to get the job done---that the Bush/Cheney administration had focused on the wrong part of the world after 9/11. And guess what? A majority of Americans voted for Barack Obama, who is now our chosen leader. Your propaganda isn't welcome and won't work with us anymore.|||Obama isn't "playing the religious card". He's a Christian. What's wrong with that?
BTW, he's also the commander in chief...I've yet to see anyone suggest that acting as such is counter to being a Christian. I guess you don't realize how many wars Christians have instigated and fought in.|||What on Earth is a "religious card" and what does it have to do with being the US commander in chief?
Obama isn't "sending of thousands of young men to kill and die in Afghanistan"...he's fighting a war. A war the supposedly Christian GW Bush started and abandoned. How many lives were lost due to his criminal inattention there while he pursued an unjustified war in Iraq?|||he doesn't have any credibility with me.|||oh you know barry. he does what he has to do to get what he wants. he;s anything you want him to be til after he gets his way then back to the conniving barry|||Obama is an atheist, so no he doesn't. He has no integrity or morals. He is a disgrace to the presidency and a disgrace to this country. God is it 2012 yet?????|||Since when have the Liberals gotten so God fearing and moral??|||None. Peace|||He only has credibility with the Obama drones everyone else knows he is a habitual liar.|||No.
How can he violate the separation of church and state and try to get his agenda pushed from the pulpit, while two good men teaching at a local high school right up the road from me, face jail time for saying grace over a meal that no students were attending? He will most likely threaten any churches who oppose him with taxation.|||no
is worth and to hand the reins to Pelosi and Reid to decide for
them.|||Yes. Jesus would not want the under five death rate that the US has to be present in the worlds richest and most powerful nation.
FACT - Insurance companies in the USA admit to pushing up prices, buying politicians and not paying out claims when they should
FACT - PER PERSON the USA spends more on healthcare than any other nation on the planet
FACT - Obama debated his plans before the election for healthcare
FACT - the chance of a child under five of dying in the USA is greater than industrialised nations with universal health coverage
FACT - Obama was elected by the American people to bring in change
FACT - Obama wants to stop insurance companies from screwing the American people
FACT - The reforms Obama wants work in the Netherlands and in Switzerland
And with Afghanistan, it is send troops there or fail.|||His was truly low-class move. It certainly did not persuade me.|||Where is the ACLU (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union) screaming about a nonexistent "separation of church and state"? This just shows how shallow the support for socialist medicine has gotten when Comrade Obama has to resort to religion to advance an unconstitutional political plot.|||What's a religious card, and how does one play it?|||When has he attempted to play the religious card?
What -IS- a religious card?|||Only if you are NAIVE, STUPID, or a LIBERAL HACK!! He is such the Emperor with NO clothes if ever I have seen one.|||Obama would have to have some religious credibility in order for Obama have any credibility playing the religious card for government run health care.
Semper Fi|||You hypocrits can't have things both ways. You either label our democratically elected president "Hitler" or you try to say he is "too religious"...when neither one is true.
President Obama is a church-going fellow (remember those among you who criticized the pastor at his Chicago church?) and so is his entire family, but he is also a Constitutional scholar and believes firmly in the Constitutional provision of separation of powers (something his predecessor routinely violated to the huge detriment of the U.S.). What he was attempting to accomplish with the conference call that involved religious leaders is to say that we are one family, the UNITED States of America (as in his first speech at the Kerry-Edwards convention). Cult-evangelical churches have been trying to overthrow out government from within (Goldberg, 2006; Sharlet, 2008) and almost succeeded under Bush/Cheney; however, by involving ALL denominations (not just the cult-fake-"Christians" who have infiltrated our government as domestic terrorists with the intent of overthrow) in the health care debate, he undermined the fundamentalists who have taken command and control of the GOP by lessening their concentrated influence in Washington and around the nation.
The war in Afghanistan was being waged during Bush/Cheney years beginning in October 2001. Iraq was an illegal war for which the Bush administration should be put on trial as war criminals; however, the attempt to capture Osama bin Laden under Bush/Cheney meant going to war in Afghanistan, where the poppy fields/heroin trade funds al Qaida and the Taliban offers training and shelter. If you were paying attention to the news in recent months, the Taliban had moved dangerously close to Pakistan's capital city (where Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is), and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton persuaded Congress and the White House to involve the Pakistan government in pushing the Taliban back over the border into Afghanistan. On advice of his new Commanding Officer in Afghanistan, President Obama has beefed up our troops and equipment, has had the troops eliminate many of the poppy fields to eliminate a funding source, secured permission to fly equipment, weapons, and troops through Russian airspace to expedite deployment, and has been working with the Pakistani army to keep the Taliban contained. This is a National Security Issue. If you are a big "Bible-thumper" which I am not usually, I believe there is a passage that reads, "There is a time for all things", is there not? We have had about 113 deaths in Afghanistan, as compared to the illegal war by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowicz et al., where 5.468 American soldiers have died and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis...
President Obama is trying to DO HIS JOB and PROTECT the U.S.! All during the campaign he kept saying that he would put more troops into Afghanistan in order to get the job done---that the Bush/Cheney administration had focused on the wrong part of the world after 9/11. And guess what? A majority of Americans voted for Barack Obama, who is now our chosen leader. Your propaganda isn't welcome and won't work with us anymore.|||Obama isn't "playing the religious card". He's a Christian. What's wrong with that?
BTW, he's also the commander in chief...I've yet to see anyone suggest that acting as such is counter to being a Christian. I guess you don't realize how many wars Christians have instigated and fought in.|||What on Earth is a "religious card" and what does it have to do with being the US commander in chief?
Obama isn't "sending of thousands of young men to kill and die in Afghanistan"...he's fighting a war. A war the supposedly Christian GW Bush started and abandoned. How many lives were lost due to his criminal inattention there while he pursued an unjustified war in Iraq?|||he doesn't have any credibility with me.|||oh you know barry. he does what he has to do to get what he wants. he;s anything you want him to be til after he gets his way then back to the conniving barry|||Obama is an atheist, so no he doesn't. He has no integrity or morals. He is a disgrace to the presidency and a disgrace to this country. God is it 2012 yet?????|||Since when have the Liberals gotten so God fearing and moral??|||None. Peace|||He only has credibility with the Obama drones everyone else knows he is a habitual liar.|||No.
How can he violate the separation of church and state and try to get his agenda pushed from the pulpit, while two good men teaching at a local high school right up the road from me, face jail time for saying grace over a meal that no students were attending? He will most likely threaten any churches who oppose him with taxation.|||no
Why do people think that the Republicans have any credibility when it comes to fiscal matters?
I'm definitely right leaning on economic matters and the Republicans have been just as bad as the Democrats in fiscal matters over the course of my life time. Yet I still see posts in here everyday by people who somehow think that they Republican party is the party that will make the spending cuts that need to be made.|||The Republican and Democratic Parties care for no country or people, they only care for their party and how to make it more powerful.Read the news and you will see that only the Democrats think their party is corruption free and will work for the best interest of our country. Also in the news you will see that only the Republicans think their party is corruption free and will work for the best interest of our country. But if you read the history of the past 10 years or more neither party has done one thing good for the country but they have helped their parties. Both spend money like it was the water of the oceans. The best thing that could ever happen to this country would be the dissolving of these two parties.|||Probably because they are the only party even saying they will make cuts. I feel the same way, but the Democrats never promise cuts, and always promise to increase someone else's taxes. That's the problem in this country. A small number of people pay all of the bills, and the rest keep screaming for more government. When is it enough? Obviously never.|||The behavior is really quite normal. Usually what happens is when the people elect a Republican President, then the Democrats take over the house. And when a Democrat becomes President, then the Republicans take over the house.|||They've been worse if you ask me. The only modern president to balance the budget was Clinton. Reagan, Bush and Bush all exploded the debt, though a combination of unfunded tax cuts and unnecessary wars.|||Not just republicans. Liberal republicans. In other words, RINOs.|||Because for more than 100 years now every GOP caucus votes to spend only a FRACTION of what their Democrat peers do.
I am writing a speech and I need a credibility statement. What would be an example of one?
It depends on the topic of your speech and whether you are giving credibility to yourself as the writer of the speech or giving credibility to the speech based on information derived from a credible outside source (scholarly journal, expert in field etc..). Giving credit to yourself is easy, for example if your paper is about sports, you can say that you have been an avid sports fan your whole life, keep track of key players, read sports books and have played sports and therefore you are knowledgeable on the topic and therefore your speech has credible information.
Why does the liberal ideology get so much credibility in America?
It's not what people think it is in my opinion.|||Because it's trendy and the majority of people are insecure and want to fit in. I agree with your comment about liberalism.|||What is a modern "Liberal Ideology"? I only have a life-long interest in political philosophy and have never heard of it. The last time a "Liberal Ideology" was rampant in the US was at its founding. Breaking away from the traditions of monarchy and state religion and adopting the idea of equality and liberty conferred on kings by Natural Law was the most liberal move ever made by a group of human beings and was spoken of as such by the Founders themselves.|||Because as you will discover (if you haven't already) "them that got is them that gets" is more than just a Billie Holiday lyric.
No system is perfect.
Carried to an extreme liberalism is unworkable in a world of capitalism and international competition.
The smaller the group, the more effective it is. On a macro scale, its not that great.
The same is true of Conservatism. As long as its YOUR standards and values being conserved, all is right with the world.|||I would argue that liberalism gets much less credibility than it deserves. Contrary to what conservative propaganda pushes, Liberals are good people trying to make sure that people have a way to pursue happiness that is unique to their personality. We don't try to say everybody should fit into the same ideal "one side fits all" lifestyle. We respect reason and difference and change.|||It has to do with the press, which is mostly liberal.|||the liberal media|||Because its based on supporting the people instead of the rich and big biz.|||Because running on a ticket of "We will help you with everything" is an easy way to get votes.|||Our entire history is based on classical liberalism in the form of individual privacy rights, universal education (not just for the rich like in feudal Europe), and humanism.
Liberal-minded progress like voting rights for women, not allowing the elderly to starve in the gutter, and labor rights and safety requirements for workers are really in the crapper, huh? Sorry, none of these were "conservative" ideas, nor would they have happened had we continued "conserving" the same old crap that conservatives think it's necessary to conserve.|||Your opinion is ill-founded. The Liberal ideology deserves more credibility than it gets, but the Right wing has assiduously vilified it so that many people have a Strawman notion of Liberalism.|||to me, it embraces man made morality, which stands in opposition to God ordained morality
and we all know who the great deceiver is
No system is perfect.
Carried to an extreme liberalism is unworkable in a world of capitalism and international competition.
The smaller the group, the more effective it is. On a macro scale, its not that great.
The same is true of Conservatism. As long as its YOUR standards and values being conserved, all is right with the world.|||I would argue that liberalism gets much less credibility than it deserves. Contrary to what conservative propaganda pushes, Liberals are good people trying to make sure that people have a way to pursue happiness that is unique to their personality. We don't try to say everybody should fit into the same ideal "one side fits all" lifestyle. We respect reason and difference and change.|||It has to do with the press, which is mostly liberal.|||the liberal media|||Because its based on supporting the people instead of the rich and big biz.|||Because running on a ticket of "We will help you with everything" is an easy way to get votes.|||Our entire history is based on classical liberalism in the form of individual privacy rights, universal education (not just for the rich like in feudal Europe), and humanism.
Liberal-minded progress like voting rights for women, not allowing the elderly to starve in the gutter, and labor rights and safety requirements for workers are really in the crapper, huh? Sorry, none of these were "conservative" ideas, nor would they have happened had we continued "conserving" the same old crap that conservatives think it's necessary to conserve.|||Your opinion is ill-founded. The Liberal ideology deserves more credibility than it gets, but the Right wing has assiduously vilified it so that many people have a Strawman notion of Liberalism.|||to me, it embraces man made morality, which stands in opposition to God ordained morality
and we all know who the great deceiver is
If this Copenhagen Summit had been energy efficient and green would they have more credibility?
If they actually practiced what they preached, arrived on commercial airlines and ridden in regular cars instead of limos... what is the point of all that opulence? Is meat banned?|||If pro wrestling was more energy efficient, would they have more credibility?|||Yes, exactly.
And don't you think that they could have had video conferencing and saved all the fuel and prevented the atmosphere from further being polluted with hundreds of thousands of tonnes of green house gases|||They are not, and if they were they would be honest men and thus by honesty they would not have fallen for this fraud or would not be the conmen promoting it. That is to say your question is moot.
It's like saying "If this square was rounded off, could it be a circle while still being a square?"
No, if rounded off it is no longer a square.|||No. These people are politicians, they care nothing about the environment. In fact they care nothing about anything other than their own desires. As such all they are concerned about in Copenhagen is appearing to care. They make sure they look like they're doing what they think they're people want, but they don't really give a damn. The whole thing is going to fail miserably, or (more likely) it will ensure the continued economic success of the developed world at the cost of the developing nations, as shown by the crafty little documents leaked today.
And don't you think that they could have had video conferencing and saved all the fuel and prevented the atmosphere from further being polluted with hundreds of thousands of tonnes of green house gases|||They are not, and if they were they would be honest men and thus by honesty they would not have fallen for this fraud or would not be the conmen promoting it. That is to say your question is moot.
It's like saying "If this square was rounded off, could it be a circle while still being a square?"
No, if rounded off it is no longer a square.|||No. These people are politicians, they care nothing about the environment. In fact they care nothing about anything other than their own desires. As such all they are concerned about in Copenhagen is appearing to care. They make sure they look like they're doing what they think they're people want, but they don't really give a damn. The whole thing is going to fail miserably, or (more likely) it will ensure the continued economic success of the developed world at the cost of the developing nations, as shown by the crafty little documents leaked today.
Do Neuro Psychiatrists find any credibility in Parapsychology?
Do Neuro Psychiatrists find any credibility in Parapsychology?
Is it possible that patients who suffer from a psychosis which is unrepsonisve to medication, ECT and traditional dynamic psychotherapy could possibly benefit from the options parapsychology can offer?|||It depends on what you mean by credibility. For example cognitive neuroscientist Michael Persinger (link below) believes that people experience psi phenomena and seeks answers in terms of brain activity.
Many skeptics quote his work inappropriately as showing that psi phenomena is explained as brain chemistry and malfunctioning. In fact any reading of his actual work easily reveals he never reaches any such conclusions.
He does believe that there are correlations (not causes) between brain activity and psi phenomena but he does not conclude that there is nothing there to trigger such an experience.
He is an excellent and careful researcher and both sides (professional skeptics and believers) should appreciate his scientific inquiry into psi phenomena while not drawing conclusions that he himself does not support.
Psiexploration|||heres the thing i believe in
if the patient believes that parapsychology does work
then he/she will be treated
that's how psychology works
if you believe in it
it happens =)
Is it possible that patients who suffer from a psychosis which is unrepsonisve to medication, ECT and traditional dynamic psychotherapy could possibly benefit from the options parapsychology can offer?|||It depends on what you mean by credibility. For example cognitive neuroscientist Michael Persinger (link below) believes that people experience psi phenomena and seeks answers in terms of brain activity.
Many skeptics quote his work inappropriately as showing that psi phenomena is explained as brain chemistry and malfunctioning. In fact any reading of his actual work easily reveals he never reaches any such conclusions.
He does believe that there are correlations (not causes) between brain activity and psi phenomena but he does not conclude that there is nothing there to trigger such an experience.
He is an excellent and careful researcher and both sides (professional skeptics and believers) should appreciate his scientific inquiry into psi phenomena while not drawing conclusions that he himself does not support.
Psiexploration|||heres the thing i believe in
if the patient believes that parapsychology does work
then he/she will be treated
that's how psychology works
if you believe in it
it happens =)
Do you feel climategate has hurt the overall credibility of science?
Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article…|||Actually, I graduated from MIT and I spent 20 years in high tech.
Most "scientists" are jerks who just do whatever gets more funding/money or more prestige.
That means abandoning principle and sucking up to powerful persons by pandering to their pet projects, and keeping quiet about the obvious flaws or outright fraud in their work.
If you really knew scientists, you'd know they don't really have much credibility to begin with.|||No but it has hurt the long, long term weather forecasting religion though. As soon as you start cheating to prove anything in science it isn't science anymore. Weather forecasting uses the highest technologies and is statistically pretty accurate over small stable areas but the minute that you start guaranteeing good or bad weather on specific days/weeks/months, next year based on what little we know today you have left all science out of it.
The sun's cycles drive Co2 and just about everything else as we know from the last dozen ice ages. Governments saw tax revenues that could morally be targeted on the bottom half of the population, plenty of 'hard scientists on 'the list' were put on the list (of believers) w/out their knowledge or consent. Watch this documentary from link:
Try to watch a copy not doctored since broadcast.|||I think the worry is more about the perception of the emails than the reality.
A few of the emails mentioned things like deletion of correspondence and trying to avoid FOIA requests, and those were probably said in frustration and with the understanding that it was venting, and not for public consumption (why would you send an email about deleting other emails and then not bother to delete the original email that mentioned deletion?).
These emails were obviously hacked, and possibly cherry picked by someone with a political axe to grind, seeing how the came out in close proximity to the Copenhagen summit.
So the constant hype about these emails will damage credibility in the lay publics mind about scientists in general, and especially climate science.|||There has been some tarnishing. Science is good at duplicating and triplicating stats and such to confirm an absolute probability. In this climategate situation, that redundancy has been compromised. Many have ruined what science has been famous for... credibility. I feel that in time, science as whole will regain some trust by the people, but hopefully there will not be so much gullibility by some to take it all with one pill... The liberals will though... if it's once again part of their band wagon... and those are the ones that were waving the carbon flag and demanding Cap and Trade.|||The majority of scientists don't believe in man-made global warming. But if there is "man-made global warming" alot of people are set to make alot of money if the Cap and Trade taxes ever see the light of day. There is too much money involved to not have alot of corruption involved in all of the "research".|||Science seeks to find proof for things that are merely theoretical. A true scientist seeks to disprove his own theories.. this is the ultimate test of truth.
This version of science seeks to validate the answer that it wants to see. That's not science, it's spin.
The credibility of true science is tested by one thing; capitalism.
Got a better mousetrap? Someone WILL pay you handsomely for it.
But science used as a cudgel with which to beat the masses over the head? Dead as a doornail. Good riddance.|||only among those who already mistrusted science.
Reasonable people understand that a couple of over zealous scientists don't damage science itself.
I just feel sad for all the hayseeds who will hear about it and listen to the Becks and the Rushes of he world convincing them that everyone in the world really is out the get them afterall.|||We know now that those involved in Climategate are liars, that they destroy data, that they manipulate and falsify analytical findings, and that they attempt to suppress competing points of view.
That to me sounds more like a fanatical cult rather than a pursuit in objective science. So the answer to your question is yes.|||No, only the credibility of conservatives is further eroded.
"Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus"
http://mediamatters.org/research/2009120…
Read the emails for yourself to see how SCIENCE works.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.ph…|||They hurt the credibility of science in showing things that are not readily apparent to society.
For example : If they invent a new way to slice bread we will be able to see it. If they tell us that we must stop watching TV or it will cause the world to explode, well we might want to see more proof.|||Yes, but on the positive side, we may begin to do what we should have done all along - accept that there is strong bias in the field and temper findings with the understanding of the funding, influences, and political motivations that were behind studies. That way, we open the door to progress through actual scientific work %26amp; exploration.|||Just politically-motivated science, climatology isn't really a "science" per se anyhow: it's nothing more than a psuedo-science like numerology, astrology and scientology.
Anthropomorphic climate change is a LIE.
Eat that environMENTALists.|||No, only in the minds of those who were anti-science to begin with. A few emails from a couple scientists should NOT diminish science's credibility which is based upon strict adherence to the scientific method and empirical data.|||Dude, I hate to break it to you but there is no scandal.
It's the hyped up ranting of the denier right wingers who will take anything out of context to support their misguided attempts to deny science.
Sorry to inform you of this...|||no science is still the sole source of credible facts in the world.
just because some rednecks will focus on an email that has nothing to do with real scientific data, doesn't mean science suddenly becomes a joke and everyone starts worshipping the sun.|||It should have hurt badly the credibility of Al Gore. Anyone who now believes him probably believes he was denied the Presidency by hanging "chads".|||Obama and the Democrats in the House and Senate could very well doom the Democratic party for decades to come...this isn't the hope and change people were wanting.|||The combination of climategate, the economy, the war and health care reform have all hurt the credibility of democrats.|||No
Not at all. Only the FOX NEWS cares about this.
However, I do feel that the FOX NEWS has hurt the overall credibility of journalism and news stations.|||With the millions of dollars the likes of Al Gore has made from this " truth " is suspect enough to question the information.|||Climategate is a hoax perpetrated by illegal hackers. It eliminates what little credibility the deniers ever had.|||Democrats have hurt the overall credibility of America.|||Faulty science and downright lies for profit have hurt the credibility more than anything.|||climategate...the new "birther"|||Only amongst the ignorant people who are already suspicious of science because they are not smart enough to understand it in the first place.|||I think "climategate" only cemented every thinking persons suspicion of this administration...PERIOD !|||Nope. Just makes Republicans look that much more gullible and stupid.|||nope
The scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit is still under investigation.. stupid.|||Yes. Those stupid politicians control the scientific community like puppets for their own wealth. Its really sickens me.|||Yes, I do. The politicization of science is very dangerous.|||Yes, I'm afraid your right.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article…|||Actually, I graduated from MIT and I spent 20 years in high tech.
Most "scientists" are jerks who just do whatever gets more funding/money or more prestige.
That means abandoning principle and sucking up to powerful persons by pandering to their pet projects, and keeping quiet about the obvious flaws or outright fraud in their work.
If you really knew scientists, you'd know they don't really have much credibility to begin with.|||No but it has hurt the long, long term weather forecasting religion though. As soon as you start cheating to prove anything in science it isn't science anymore. Weather forecasting uses the highest technologies and is statistically pretty accurate over small stable areas but the minute that you start guaranteeing good or bad weather on specific days/weeks/months, next year based on what little we know today you have left all science out of it.
The sun's cycles drive Co2 and just about everything else as we know from the last dozen ice ages. Governments saw tax revenues that could morally be targeted on the bottom half of the population, plenty of 'hard scientists on 'the list' were put on the list (of believers) w/out their knowledge or consent. Watch this documentary from link:
Try to watch a copy not doctored since broadcast.|||I think the worry is more about the perception of the emails than the reality.
A few of the emails mentioned things like deletion of correspondence and trying to avoid FOIA requests, and those were probably said in frustration and with the understanding that it was venting, and not for public consumption (why would you send an email about deleting other emails and then not bother to delete the original email that mentioned deletion?).
These emails were obviously hacked, and possibly cherry picked by someone with a political axe to grind, seeing how the came out in close proximity to the Copenhagen summit.
So the constant hype about these emails will damage credibility in the lay publics mind about scientists in general, and especially climate science.|||There has been some tarnishing. Science is good at duplicating and triplicating stats and such to confirm an absolute probability. In this climategate situation, that redundancy has been compromised. Many have ruined what science has been famous for... credibility. I feel that in time, science as whole will regain some trust by the people, but hopefully there will not be so much gullibility by some to take it all with one pill... The liberals will though... if it's once again part of their band wagon... and those are the ones that were waving the carbon flag and demanding Cap and Trade.|||The majority of scientists don't believe in man-made global warming. But if there is "man-made global warming" alot of people are set to make alot of money if the Cap and Trade taxes ever see the light of day. There is too much money involved to not have alot of corruption involved in all of the "research".|||Science seeks to find proof for things that are merely theoretical. A true scientist seeks to disprove his own theories.. this is the ultimate test of truth.
This version of science seeks to validate the answer that it wants to see. That's not science, it's spin.
The credibility of true science is tested by one thing; capitalism.
Got a better mousetrap? Someone WILL pay you handsomely for it.
But science used as a cudgel with which to beat the masses over the head? Dead as a doornail. Good riddance.|||only among those who already mistrusted science.
Reasonable people understand that a couple of over zealous scientists don't damage science itself.
I just feel sad for all the hayseeds who will hear about it and listen to the Becks and the Rushes of he world convincing them that everyone in the world really is out the get them afterall.|||We know now that those involved in Climategate are liars, that they destroy data, that they manipulate and falsify analytical findings, and that they attempt to suppress competing points of view.
That to me sounds more like a fanatical cult rather than a pursuit in objective science. So the answer to your question is yes.|||No, only the credibility of conservatives is further eroded.
"Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus"
http://mediamatters.org/research/2009120…
Read the emails for yourself to see how SCIENCE works.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.ph…|||They hurt the credibility of science in showing things that are not readily apparent to society.
For example : If they invent a new way to slice bread we will be able to see it. If they tell us that we must stop watching TV or it will cause the world to explode, well we might want to see more proof.|||Yes, but on the positive side, we may begin to do what we should have done all along - accept that there is strong bias in the field and temper findings with the understanding of the funding, influences, and political motivations that were behind studies. That way, we open the door to progress through actual scientific work %26amp; exploration.|||Just politically-motivated science, climatology isn't really a "science" per se anyhow: it's nothing more than a psuedo-science like numerology, astrology and scientology.
Anthropomorphic climate change is a LIE.
Eat that environMENTALists.|||No, only in the minds of those who were anti-science to begin with. A few emails from a couple scientists should NOT diminish science's credibility which is based upon strict adherence to the scientific method and empirical data.|||Dude, I hate to break it to you but there is no scandal.
It's the hyped up ranting of the denier right wingers who will take anything out of context to support their misguided attempts to deny science.
Sorry to inform you of this...|||no science is still the sole source of credible facts in the world.
just because some rednecks will focus on an email that has nothing to do with real scientific data, doesn't mean science suddenly becomes a joke and everyone starts worshipping the sun.|||It should have hurt badly the credibility of Al Gore. Anyone who now believes him probably believes he was denied the Presidency by hanging "chads".|||Obama and the Democrats in the House and Senate could very well doom the Democratic party for decades to come...this isn't the hope and change people were wanting.|||The combination of climategate, the economy, the war and health care reform have all hurt the credibility of democrats.|||No
Not at all. Only the FOX NEWS cares about this.
However, I do feel that the FOX NEWS has hurt the overall credibility of journalism and news stations.|||With the millions of dollars the likes of Al Gore has made from this " truth " is suspect enough to question the information.|||Climategate is a hoax perpetrated by illegal hackers. It eliminates what little credibility the deniers ever had.|||Democrats have hurt the overall credibility of America.|||Faulty science and downright lies for profit have hurt the credibility more than anything.|||climategate...the new "birther"|||Only amongst the ignorant people who are already suspicious of science because they are not smart enough to understand it in the first place.|||I think "climategate" only cemented every thinking persons suspicion of this administration...PERIOD !|||Nope. Just makes Republicans look that much more gullible and stupid.|||nope
The scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit is still under investigation.. stupid.|||Yes. Those stupid politicians control the scientific community like puppets for their own wealth. Its really sickens me.|||Yes, I do. The politicization of science is very dangerous.|||Yes, I'm afraid your right.
What would my credibility be for my persuasive speech on Abortion?
For my persuasive speech im doing against abortion. Ive never had sex, so its not a personal experiance for me... So. help?|||1) The woman does suffer psychological damage after having an abortion, no specific sites or reports but everybody deep down views a a fetus as baby because if they have a miscarriage its not your fetus died, its your baby died.
2) The Baby is a living being with a human soul. Killing is murder, they did nothing to deserve it, they did not hurt us and are not a threat. The biological parents did the action of sex, why should the baby suffer and die. (this may work depending on where the speech is going to be)
3) adoption exists, there are many parents who want a child and sadly some cannot have children for one reason or another.
4) There is a danger in any surgery, why risk blades in the womb of a woman's body. when better options exist.
5) people regret having abortion later on in life, because they many be trying to conceive and can't, possibly due to the abortion.
Sorry about no specific websites, but I have hearing this for a long time, the key words should lead to information and studies.|||"If abortion is about women's rights, where were my rights?" - Madden, Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor.
A reason against abortion is that it would be killing human life (it isn't just a lump of tissue- the unborn baby is a separate being to their mother and their genetics are decided as soon as the sperm enters the egg).
Maybe you could also compare the killing of unborn children to killing of those who are in comas. Just because life is dependant, it does not mean it belongs to someone else. No matter if the mother has been raped. Abortion has been known to only cause more trauma. Killing a baby won't un-rape someone- only love and pyschological help can help with that. (I'm not making this up by the way, my sister was raped, so I know the effects it has).
People are willing to buy their dogs fancy leads, dress them up and pay expensive vet fees, yet support the killing or our own species because they are unwilling to make sacrifices.|||You will probably have sex some day. You could be raped tonight, for that matter. It is smart to think about these issues before you are faced with the decision.
Learn about the experiences of women who have had abortions.
Learn about fetal development.
The facts are crucial to a good argument. The fact that you haven't been pregnant with an unplanned child doesn't change the facts.
Once you have decided what is right and what is wrong based on the facts and reason, you are in a better position to deal with the intense emotions of the situation.|||"Women should be allowed to choose."
"It's okay if the baby was born of rape."
"It's the woman's body. She has her own rights."
"It's not a baby until it's born."
All arguments FOR abortion, and completely unnecessary. These reasons are completely irrational, and have nothing to back it up.
1. Maybe so, but what if the unborn child is a female? If women have rights, then the unborn child does, too. If the child is female, then they have a right to choose as well as the mother.
2. Having an abortion does not undo rape or whatever caused this. The mother will still remain emotionally scarred, and an abortion will add guilt onto it. My aunt is a psychologist, and she took a survey and found out that women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide or become depressed.
3. Going back to the first point. The child may be female meaning she shares the same rights as her mother. Children also have rights, and just because that child isn't born yet doesn't make it any less of one. That child has rights.
4. No, but it is a human. Do we call an adult a baby? Do we call a teenager a baby? Growth does not separate us; we are all human. The child is still a human and still has human rights. Disagree? Take a look at the child's genes, cells, and DNA, and then tell me I'm wrong.
Women who often have abortions tell themselves that it's not their fault, they're not losing anything etc. It is their fault, they are losing something, and it is MURDER. Oxford Dictionary states murder as, "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Abortion is exactly that. They also say that they won't regret it, but they will. They will already have motherly hormones regardless of how far they are in their pregnancy. Subconsciously, they will hate themselves for it.|||I would point to the fact that if anyone else killed that fetus the person would be charged with murder. Well, that implies a life is lost. So if a life is lost, then how come one person, without benefit of due process, can cause that killing? It's inconsistent. If we want to kill anyone else, unless they are threatening us with an immediate deadly attack, then we have to go through a big trial, and appeals and it takes 20 years.|||Zero. You either are presenting an emotional or a religious view, neither of which has credibility beyond your own beliefs. You obviously have to make your own decisions, but so must others.|||You don't have much.
2) The Baby is a living being with a human soul. Killing is murder, they did nothing to deserve it, they did not hurt us and are not a threat. The biological parents did the action of sex, why should the baby suffer and die. (this may work depending on where the speech is going to be)
3) adoption exists, there are many parents who want a child and sadly some cannot have children for one reason or another.
4) There is a danger in any surgery, why risk blades in the womb of a woman's body. when better options exist.
5) people regret having abortion later on in life, because they many be trying to conceive and can't, possibly due to the abortion.
Sorry about no specific websites, but I have hearing this for a long time, the key words should lead to information and studies.|||"If abortion is about women's rights, where were my rights?" - Madden, Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor.
A reason against abortion is that it would be killing human life (it isn't just a lump of tissue- the unborn baby is a separate being to their mother and their genetics are decided as soon as the sperm enters the egg).
Maybe you could also compare the killing of unborn children to killing of those who are in comas. Just because life is dependant, it does not mean it belongs to someone else. No matter if the mother has been raped. Abortion has been known to only cause more trauma. Killing a baby won't un-rape someone- only love and pyschological help can help with that. (I'm not making this up by the way, my sister was raped, so I know the effects it has).
People are willing to buy their dogs fancy leads, dress them up and pay expensive vet fees, yet support the killing or our own species because they are unwilling to make sacrifices.|||You will probably have sex some day. You could be raped tonight, for that matter. It is smart to think about these issues before you are faced with the decision.
Learn about the experiences of women who have had abortions.
Learn about fetal development.
The facts are crucial to a good argument. The fact that you haven't been pregnant with an unplanned child doesn't change the facts.
Once you have decided what is right and what is wrong based on the facts and reason, you are in a better position to deal with the intense emotions of the situation.|||"Women should be allowed to choose."
"It's okay if the baby was born of rape."
"It's the woman's body. She has her own rights."
"It's not a baby until it's born."
All arguments FOR abortion, and completely unnecessary. These reasons are completely irrational, and have nothing to back it up.
1. Maybe so, but what if the unborn child is a female? If women have rights, then the unborn child does, too. If the child is female, then they have a right to choose as well as the mother.
2. Having an abortion does not undo rape or whatever caused this. The mother will still remain emotionally scarred, and an abortion will add guilt onto it. My aunt is a psychologist, and she took a survey and found out that women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide or become depressed.
3. Going back to the first point. The child may be female meaning she shares the same rights as her mother. Children also have rights, and just because that child isn't born yet doesn't make it any less of one. That child has rights.
4. No, but it is a human. Do we call an adult a baby? Do we call a teenager a baby? Growth does not separate us; we are all human. The child is still a human and still has human rights. Disagree? Take a look at the child's genes, cells, and DNA, and then tell me I'm wrong.
Women who often have abortions tell themselves that it's not their fault, they're not losing anything etc. It is their fault, they are losing something, and it is MURDER. Oxford Dictionary states murder as, "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Abortion is exactly that. They also say that they won't regret it, but they will. They will already have motherly hormones regardless of how far they are in their pregnancy. Subconsciously, they will hate themselves for it.|||I would point to the fact that if anyone else killed that fetus the person would be charged with murder. Well, that implies a life is lost. So if a life is lost, then how come one person, without benefit of due process, can cause that killing? It's inconsistent. If we want to kill anyone else, unless they are threatening us with an immediate deadly attack, then we have to go through a big trial, and appeals and it takes 20 years.|||Zero. You either are presenting an emotional or a religious view, neither of which has credibility beyond your own beliefs. You obviously have to make your own decisions, but so must others.|||You don't have much.
How much credibility did the WWE take away from Gail Kim?
She ain't get much of an reaction tonight.
BQ: We one more member strong. Let's continue not to revive the stable as it once was but to make it even stronger now that we got all the suckas out.|||Just about all of it. It won't take much to get it back though. They'll let her bust her butt in the ring again and show the E what they let go...again.|||because alot of people lost respect for Gail Kim with the way she acted unprofessionally she knew from the beginning before signing with WWE how they were yet she choose to sign with them anyway alot are saying she is starting to become like the female version of Matt Hardy he bitched and whined til he was finally free of his contract to go to TNA give it time and Gail will be bitching about TNA later on|||WWE treat their divas poorly and Gail Kim eliminate her self on the Divas Battle Royal because she was scripted to do so|||A lot. No one cares about her anymore.|||No to the fans she is a traitor so she might get cut again or they may not re sign her.
BQ: Yeah sure
BQ: We one more member strong. Let's continue not to revive the stable as it once was but to make it even stronger now that we got all the suckas out.|||Just about all of it. It won't take much to get it back though. They'll let her bust her butt in the ring again and show the E what they let go...again.|||because alot of people lost respect for Gail Kim with the way she acted unprofessionally she knew from the beginning before signing with WWE how they were yet she choose to sign with them anyway alot are saying she is starting to become like the female version of Matt Hardy he bitched and whined til he was finally free of his contract to go to TNA give it time and Gail will be bitching about TNA later on|||WWE treat their divas poorly and Gail Kim eliminate her self on the Divas Battle Royal because she was scripted to do so|||A lot. No one cares about her anymore.|||No to the fans she is a traitor so she might get cut again or they may not re sign her.
BQ: Yeah sure
If Christians had obeyed what Christ commanded and taught would Christianity had more credibility?
Instead of being a problem to the world they have been for 2000 years.
If they truly had practised love, peace and unifying mankind instead of wars, crusades, inqusitions, persecutions and other crimes.|||Not necessarily practicing peace and love but actually knowing and having a relationship with God. If we knew Him, everything will fall into place. There's too many "Christians" that have a crisis of faith that don't spend time in prayer and they don't even know what the Bible says, they come to these forums clueless.|||Credibility is based upon conformance to reality. Until such time as there is evidence of the god they believe in, there is no credibility.|||+ The Crusades +
Muslim armies had conquered Syria, Persia, Palestine, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, Sicily, Southern Italy, Cyprus, Rhodes, Sardinia, Majorca, Crete, and Malta which had been some of the most heavily Christian areas in the world. They attacked Rome and came within 100 miles of Paris before being pushed back.
Thousands, and possibly millions, of Christians died during this drive to eventually bring the entire world under Islam.
The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II to check the advance of the Muslims and regain control of the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land.
If this defensive war was not fought then we would probably all be Muslim today.
I am sure that some atrocities were committed by individuals of both sides during this war but by most people's judgment this was a just war.
For more information, see:
+ The Crusaders by R茅gine Pernoud
+ The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude (1996) by Bat Ye鈥檕r
+ God鈥檚 Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (2009) by Rodney Stark
+ The Inquisition +
Modern historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth. The Inquisition was actually an attempt by the Catholic Church to stop unjust executions.
Heresy was a capital offense against the state. It was considered a type of treason. Rulers of the state, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw heretics as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath.
When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig. It was not easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. The lord needed some basic theological training, very few did. The sad result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent judge of the crime.
The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, an attempt to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges.
From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.
Most people tried for heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or had their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed.
If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities with pleas for mercy that were frequently ignored. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.
Where did this myth come from? After 1530, the Inquisition began to turn its attention to the new heresy of Lutheranism. It was the Protestant Reformation and the rivalries it spawned that would give birth to the myth. Innumerable books and pamphlets poured from the printing presses of Protestant countries at war with Spain accusing the Spanish Inquisition of inhuman depravity and horrible atrocities in the New World. Most of these lies are still being circulated as fact.
For more information, see:
+ The Real Inquisition, By Thomas F. Madden, National Review (2004) http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ma鈥?/a>
+ Inquisition by Edward Peters (1988)
+ The Spanish Inquisition by Henry Kamen (1997)
+ The Spanish Inquisition: Fact Versus Fiction, By Marvin R. O'Connell (1996): http://www.catholiceducation.org/article鈥?/a>
+ The Church of the Apostles and Martyrs (1963) by Henri Daniel-Rops
+ Religious Dissent in the Middle Ages (1971) edited by Jeffrey B. Russell
+ The Inquisition (1927) by A. L. Maycock
+ The Inquisition: A Political and Military Study of Its Establishment (1932) by Hoffman Nickerson
+ Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error (1978) by LeRoy Ladurie
With love in Christ.|||And now the torch has been passed down to the muslims who will cut a ***** for speaking ill of allah. If you poke fun at either religion, which one do you REALLY think is going to issue you a death threat?|||I completely agree. Instead of imitating the model Jesus' left for his disciples, they did the exact opposite. Instead of promoting peace and love among their neighbors, there wouldn't have been countless deaths over who's really the "right religion". And frankly, none of the Christian/Catholic churches have been fulfilling Jesus' biggest assignment to his disciples of all.
Matthew 24:14: "And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come."
No other organization has always promoted peace and love, remained completely neutral in any political or religious conflicts, and most importantly preached the "good news" to as many people as possible. Jehovah's Witnesses are currently preaching this good news of the kingdom in over 236 lands and in some 500+ languages. If you'd like to know more about the TRUE Christians, not according to what we say, but according to what the BIBLE says we would be, log on to www.watchtower.org or you can request a free home Bible study using YOUR Bible at your convenience.
https://watch002.securesites.net/e/conta鈥?/a>|||you don't have to be a christian to be a jerk|||i agree completely
however, in terms of wars and crusades - they aren't historically marked as as 'christian' endeavours - but rather land grabbing feudal lords - hungry for power and position, nothing to do with religion, but rather to validate claims in front of the pope.
there's been far too much political power attached to the term 'christianity' over the past - (well, thousand years rather than two thousand) - in europe. Asia has a much better history of christianity.|||They were not christians although they were called so!|||People saying that religion being the cause or the participants of violence and war is a response I have to agree with pretty much in my ministry. Then I have the task of showing people that not all faiths particularly like Jehovah's Witnesses who have participated in such terrible things.
In the First World War we had participated in non-combatant roles such as aiding battlefield hospitals but quickly came to recognise that even these roles supported war and compromised our neutrality to national politics and their military. Though we are completely neutral to earthly politics we are not pacifists since the government we stand and fight for is not an earthly one but a heavenly one and our nation's leader we fight; even prepare to die for is Christ Jesus.
If they truly had practised love, peace and unifying mankind instead of wars, crusades, inqusitions, persecutions and other crimes.|||Not necessarily practicing peace and love but actually knowing and having a relationship with God. If we knew Him, everything will fall into place. There's too many "Christians" that have a crisis of faith that don't spend time in prayer and they don't even know what the Bible says, they come to these forums clueless.|||Credibility is based upon conformance to reality. Until such time as there is evidence of the god they believe in, there is no credibility.|||+ The Crusades +
Muslim armies had conquered Syria, Persia, Palestine, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, Sicily, Southern Italy, Cyprus, Rhodes, Sardinia, Majorca, Crete, and Malta which had been some of the most heavily Christian areas in the world. They attacked Rome and came within 100 miles of Paris before being pushed back.
Thousands, and possibly millions, of Christians died during this drive to eventually bring the entire world under Islam.
The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II to check the advance of the Muslims and regain control of the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land.
If this defensive war was not fought then we would probably all be Muslim today.
I am sure that some atrocities were committed by individuals of both sides during this war but by most people's judgment this was a just war.
For more information, see:
+ The Crusaders by R茅gine Pernoud
+ The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude (1996) by Bat Ye鈥檕r
+ God鈥檚 Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (2009) by Rodney Stark
+ The Inquisition +
Modern historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth. The Inquisition was actually an attempt by the Catholic Church to stop unjust executions.
Heresy was a capital offense against the state. It was considered a type of treason. Rulers of the state, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw heretics as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath.
When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig. It was not easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. The lord needed some basic theological training, very few did. The sad result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent judge of the crime.
The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, an attempt to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges.
From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.
Most people tried for heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or had their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed.
If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities with pleas for mercy that were frequently ignored. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.
Where did this myth come from? After 1530, the Inquisition began to turn its attention to the new heresy of Lutheranism. It was the Protestant Reformation and the rivalries it spawned that would give birth to the myth. Innumerable books and pamphlets poured from the printing presses of Protestant countries at war with Spain accusing the Spanish Inquisition of inhuman depravity and horrible atrocities in the New World. Most of these lies are still being circulated as fact.
For more information, see:
+ The Real Inquisition, By Thomas F. Madden, National Review (2004) http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ma鈥?/a>
+ Inquisition by Edward Peters (1988)
+ The Spanish Inquisition by Henry Kamen (1997)
+ The Spanish Inquisition: Fact Versus Fiction, By Marvin R. O'Connell (1996): http://www.catholiceducation.org/article鈥?/a>
+ The Church of the Apostles and Martyrs (1963) by Henri Daniel-Rops
+ Religious Dissent in the Middle Ages (1971) edited by Jeffrey B. Russell
+ The Inquisition (1927) by A. L. Maycock
+ The Inquisition: A Political and Military Study of Its Establishment (1932) by Hoffman Nickerson
+ Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error (1978) by LeRoy Ladurie
With love in Christ.|||And now the torch has been passed down to the muslims who will cut a ***** for speaking ill of allah. If you poke fun at either religion, which one do you REALLY think is going to issue you a death threat?|||I completely agree. Instead of imitating the model Jesus' left for his disciples, they did the exact opposite. Instead of promoting peace and love among their neighbors, there wouldn't have been countless deaths over who's really the "right religion". And frankly, none of the Christian/Catholic churches have been fulfilling Jesus' biggest assignment to his disciples of all.
Matthew 24:14: "And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come."
No other organization has always promoted peace and love, remained completely neutral in any political or religious conflicts, and most importantly preached the "good news" to as many people as possible. Jehovah's Witnesses are currently preaching this good news of the kingdom in over 236 lands and in some 500+ languages. If you'd like to know more about the TRUE Christians, not according to what we say, but according to what the BIBLE says we would be, log on to www.watchtower.org or you can request a free home Bible study using YOUR Bible at your convenience.
https://watch002.securesites.net/e/conta鈥?/a>|||you don't have to be a christian to be a jerk|||i agree completely
however, in terms of wars and crusades - they aren't historically marked as as 'christian' endeavours - but rather land grabbing feudal lords - hungry for power and position, nothing to do with religion, but rather to validate claims in front of the pope.
there's been far too much political power attached to the term 'christianity' over the past - (well, thousand years rather than two thousand) - in europe. Asia has a much better history of christianity.|||They were not christians although they were called so!|||People saying that religion being the cause or the participants of violence and war is a response I have to agree with pretty much in my ministry. Then I have the task of showing people that not all faiths particularly like Jehovah's Witnesses who have participated in such terrible things.
In the First World War we had participated in non-combatant roles such as aiding battlefield hospitals but quickly came to recognise that even these roles supported war and compromised our neutrality to national politics and their military. Though we are completely neutral to earthly politics we are not pacifists since the government we stand and fight for is not an earthly one but a heavenly one and our nation's leader we fight; even prepare to die for is Christ Jesus.
Can the progressive elites in America maintain credibility with voters without lower the nations deficit?
The liberals have very little credibility as it is. They have failed the public.|||Progressive politicians presumably view the debt as a problem and work on it as much (or should I say as little) as politicians of any other political stripe. Conservatives, with their control of the White House for 20 of the last 30 years (Reagan 8, Bush 4, Bush 8) have done little to help the deficit and have notably contributed to it. I'm not blaming them - higher levels of spending and lower taxes are very popular. It is doubtful that anybody can really change that.
To answer your question about credibility, yeah, I think conservatives, progressives, liberals, libertarians, fascists, communists, or whoever else might be in charge can maintain credibility without lowering the deficit. The deficit is an abstract concept. People care about it now because it is getting a lot of play in the media, but I wouldn't expect it to last. I actually would imagine that whoever does solve the deficit problem not only will not get credibility, but will be very unpopular, because lowering the deficit will likely require raising taxes, cutting popular programs, and cutting military spending. Each is political suicide. Don't expect credibility to be given for it.|||Consider the facts:
VP Cheney, 2002: “Reagan proved deficits dont matter.” Treasury Sec Paul O’Neill was trying to warn Cheney the $500 billion budget deficit was already a threat to the economy and a second round of tax cuts would increase it, but Cheney told him deficits don’t matter. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/0…
Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in Econ: Greenspan %26amp; Wm Kristol cheerleaded the GOP bait-%26amp;-switch campaign on taxcuts to deliberately build up huge govt debt, then alleging only by gutting SS %26amp; Medicare/caid can we reduce it. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/opinio…
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinio… GOP’s real agenda, privatizing and dismantling Medicare %26amp; Social Security. Pledge to America.
The Great Deficit Scare, by the creators of The Great Recession; the deficit hawks’ road to ruin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…|||The concern with deficits by the right is a bunch of crap. It was never a problem when Reagan or the Bushies were spending like drunken sailors. Even the current Tea Party / GOP conservatives have no intention of closing the deficit. If they did, the Bush tax cuts would be history.|||The deficit is the least of their concerns, since they never gave a thought to repaying it.|||No, they have already lost all credibility with H/C and global warming...|||progressive elites is an oxymoron.|||Progressive elites? Wow...|||It would obviously be tougher, since both sides need to agree on actions.|||%26gt;elites
And how are conservatives any less elitist than progressives?|||You believe any side? All politicians lie. Very simple and universal truth.
To answer your question about credibility, yeah, I think conservatives, progressives, liberals, libertarians, fascists, communists, or whoever else might be in charge can maintain credibility without lowering the deficit. The deficit is an abstract concept. People care about it now because it is getting a lot of play in the media, but I wouldn't expect it to last. I actually would imagine that whoever does solve the deficit problem not only will not get credibility, but will be very unpopular, because lowering the deficit will likely require raising taxes, cutting popular programs, and cutting military spending. Each is political suicide. Don't expect credibility to be given for it.|||Consider the facts:
VP Cheney, 2002: “Reagan proved deficits dont matter.” Treasury Sec Paul O’Neill was trying to warn Cheney the $500 billion budget deficit was already a threat to the economy and a second round of tax cuts would increase it, but Cheney told him deficits don’t matter. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/0…
Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in Econ: Greenspan %26amp; Wm Kristol cheerleaded the GOP bait-%26amp;-switch campaign on taxcuts to deliberately build up huge govt debt, then alleging only by gutting SS %26amp; Medicare/caid can we reduce it. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/opinio…
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinio… GOP’s real agenda, privatizing and dismantling Medicare %26amp; Social Security. Pledge to America.
The Great Deficit Scare, by the creators of The Great Recession; the deficit hawks’ road to ruin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…|||The concern with deficits by the right is a bunch of crap. It was never a problem when Reagan or the Bushies were spending like drunken sailors. Even the current Tea Party / GOP conservatives have no intention of closing the deficit. If they did, the Bush tax cuts would be history.|||The deficit is the least of their concerns, since they never gave a thought to repaying it.|||No, they have already lost all credibility with H/C and global warming...|||progressive elites is an oxymoron.|||Progressive elites? Wow...|||It would obviously be tougher, since both sides need to agree on actions.|||%26gt;elites
And how are conservatives any less elitist than progressives?|||You believe any side? All politicians lie. Very simple and universal truth.
What would happen to Obama's credibility if he vetoes the stimulus bill?
Not saying that he would of course, but it's amusing to consider.|||that would definitely funny! can you Imagine sitting at the desk with the pen and everything and then he just says....
'SURPRISE!!!....I'm not going to sign this piece of garbage.....are you crazy???|||Yeah, what happened to his cutting the pork, line by line - this bumper sticker slogan sounds familiar - oh, yeah it was what he campaigned on - that's right.
Change we can count on - when's it going to happen.
When is Obama going to cut the pork - line by line?|||He can't veto it he owes to many liberals and this is payback. The best part of this stimulus fiasco is that the republicans are banding together and opposing it, the longer it is delayed the less support it will have by the voters|||He should do what John McCain said he would do. Go through the bill line by line and cut the pork. But he won't. He owes too many people payback.|||He would gain major acceptance still watching but a start. We need no spending.
He says we need spending so he would look foolish since he already said spending is good.|||Hmm I don't even consider that to be a possiblity. lolz|||The madia would fawn over his toughness. He would be a hero either way.|||well it would show he should not be running this country if he dosent say what he means and means what he says
'SURPRISE!!!....I'm not going to sign this piece of garbage.....are you crazy???|||Yeah, what happened to his cutting the pork, line by line - this bumper sticker slogan sounds familiar - oh, yeah it was what he campaigned on - that's right.
Change we can count on - when's it going to happen.
When is Obama going to cut the pork - line by line?|||He can't veto it he owes to many liberals and this is payback. The best part of this stimulus fiasco is that the republicans are banding together and opposing it, the longer it is delayed the less support it will have by the voters|||He should do what John McCain said he would do. Go through the bill line by line and cut the pork. But he won't. He owes too many people payback.|||He would gain major acceptance still watching but a start. We need no spending.
He says we need spending so he would look foolish since he already said spending is good.|||Hmm I don't even consider that to be a possiblity. lolz|||The madia would fawn over his toughness. He would be a hero either way.|||well it would show he should not be running this country if he dosent say what he means and means what he says
What can america do to regain the credibility, and integrity?
of her people, her nation, and her world. She has suffered another black eye with the Va. Tech tragedy. We play watchdog over many other countries, and nations, however she cant police her own communities. It to me seems like another joke those abroad can poke and make fun about. Let me know of your take on how you think the other nations view us.|||America can gain the above by getting the respect back...it deserves it in so many areas that are overlooked, but there is no doubt that Iraq and the gun problem really hamper us now....we will slowly get back, it's just now it will be harder as the world is much smaller and the fact and rumor mill work overtime...no different will all countries...Iraq was acquired by Bush from other administrations, and he just took a different stand than the others and that is what has happened...if he gave up the fight, he could and would save our and his reputations for the history pages....but that is just the tip of the iceburg for this country and many, many others, each with it's own set of problems and agonizing moments.|||Americans can stop bashing their own country. There is not a perfect country on this planet. I can guarantee you that they will "poke and make fun" of us no matter what we do. I saw the bigotry firsthand when I lived in the UK and Bush wasn't even in office. It's just confusing to us because we are not taught to chide our alley countries and other people of the world.
We have a great country. We should all be proud of it.|||form a government that is for the people and by the people...like it is suppose to be.
I don't care how other nations view us.
There will always be somebody out there that will "criticize" us.|||I think we need to get back the respect of other countries, We will always have nations that don't like us, but we need to be honest and above board in America before others will look at us that way. Hopefully someone can lead us in this effort quickly
We have a great country. We should all be proud of it.|||form a government that is for the people and by the people...like it is suppose to be.
I don't care how other nations view us.
There will always be somebody out there that will "criticize" us.|||I think we need to get back the respect of other countries, We will always have nations that don't like us, but we need to be honest and above board in America before others will look at us that way. Hopefully someone can lead us in this effort quickly
What do you think of the credibility of the Pauli effect?
(not the Pauli exclusion principle)
What do you know about it and would it make a good research topic for a paper of about 4000 words?|||I had to look it up in wikipedia - interesting theory, and I am not unfamiliar with the concept. However, for me, it usually works in reverse, as amoung my jobs, I have to fix things or make them work. Being exceptional at this sort of thing, machines tend to malfunction when I'm not around, yet work properly once l show up =8^)
But as the topic of a research paper? I'd say exactly on par with a research paper that investigates The Pharoh's Curse, for example. Interesting more academically than scientifically. But it's up to you....
Best Wishes,
Gary|||The "Pauli effect" was originally a humorous, tongue-in-cheek claim that whenever the wunderkind physics theorist Wolfgang Pauli walked into, or even went nearby a laboratory, some breakage or much worse disaster occurred. It effectively became one of those urban legends propagated around the world of physicists.
It's used nowadays as part of the banter that continually goes on between theorists and experimenters.
Like almost anything these days, you can look it up on Wikipedia, but I doubt that you could spin it out into a 4,000 word essay. Put if you perhaps used it to illustrate the tension that sometimes exists between the worlds of the theorist and the experimenter, you might be able to use it.
Another example of that tension was a statement made by the astrophysicist, cosmologist and general relativist Hermann Bondi, in the 1950s at a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society : "Fifty per cent of 'OBSERVATIONS' are INCORRECT!" Earlier, Sir Arthur Eddington proclaimed "No observation should be believed until it has been CONFIRMED by theory."
Live long and prosper.
What do you know about it and would it make a good research topic for a paper of about 4000 words?|||I had to look it up in wikipedia - interesting theory, and I am not unfamiliar with the concept. However, for me, it usually works in reverse, as amoung my jobs, I have to fix things or make them work. Being exceptional at this sort of thing, machines tend to malfunction when I'm not around, yet work properly once l show up =8^)
But as the topic of a research paper? I'd say exactly on par with a research paper that investigates The Pharoh's Curse, for example. Interesting more academically than scientifically. But it's up to you....
Best Wishes,
Gary|||The "Pauli effect" was originally a humorous, tongue-in-cheek claim that whenever the wunderkind physics theorist Wolfgang Pauli walked into, or even went nearby a laboratory, some breakage or much worse disaster occurred. It effectively became one of those urban legends propagated around the world of physicists.
It's used nowadays as part of the banter that continually goes on between theorists and experimenters.
Like almost anything these days, you can look it up on Wikipedia, but I doubt that you could spin it out into a 4,000 word essay. Put if you perhaps used it to illustrate the tension that sometimes exists between the worlds of the theorist and the experimenter, you might be able to use it.
Another example of that tension was a statement made by the astrophysicist, cosmologist and general relativist Hermann Bondi, in the 1950s at a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society : "Fifty per cent of 'OBSERVATIONS' are INCORRECT!" Earlier, Sir Arthur Eddington proclaimed "No observation should be believed until it has been CONFIRMED by theory."
Live long and prosper.
Do you give an answer less credibility if they use bad grammar?
Such as using There instead of Their, Your instead of You're or just spelling things wrong.|||Sometimes. I know people get very excited when they post answers, so to a certain extent I will take that into consideration, but when it's real illiteracy, no.|||Speaking of credibility, dear, there is a difference between grammar and spelling. You can have good grammar and not spell very well or spell very well and have lousy grammar.
That said, your examples are all about spelling. For some, English may not be their native language and English is a serious bytche when it comes to spelling.
I try to read a question for content, I've seen some really good questions/answers that were hard to read because of the spelling/grammar errors but they conveyed some really good thoughts. So you do have to overlook things sometimes, although I admit I have a bias towards proper language usage.
Blessings on your Journey!|||I can say with all honesty that no I try and answer every single question with dignity towards the questioner.
There are many reasons why bad grammar occurs. Yes it can be through laziness, but what if the person is stressed or upset? Also the English language is not so easy to understand and it is very easy to make mistakes.
As strange as it may seem, but with modern technology these days, there are those who probably illiterate due to bad education, but can handle a computer with their eyes closed!
I admit that when I read the errors, I think: why did you not use the spell check? But that is as far as it goes, because we all make errors - just some of ours tend to proof read before pressing the send button.
I made three errors just on this!|||Not really. Many people here are not native speakers to English, hence the incorrect grammar. These are usually easy to spot. Many people suffer from dyslexia, as well. My brother, for instance, has severe dyslexia. Having proof-read many of his essays, his spelling is atrocious! He doesn't have much trouble with grammar, though. They honestly can't help it - so I don't judge. What matters is whether the idea is being communicated efficiently or not.
If the answer is literally unintelligible and makes no sense whatsoever, I definitely give it less credibility. If it's in "texting" language, the poster does lose credibility. If people don't know what a period is, that gets annoying.|||Someone who is clearly illiterate is almost certain to be uneducated and uninformed also.
Bad spelling is not a strong indicator of illiteracy (even people with dyslexia spell atrociously, though they are hardly disadvantaged at all). Bad grammar, and especially wrong word choices, are nearly always indicative of serious problems.|||It bores me to death if people give me spelling lessons, often people fail to realise that spelling in English, which I use, is different than American spelling. I don't correct anybody, I just have a crack at the questions.
You can't gain intellectual superiority by ignoring a question and picking holes in spelling.
If you try to, it just shows you can't answer the question but you got annoyed by it.|||No. I know plenty of intelligent, rational people who are awful at spelling. To judge a person's rationality, intelligence, and the relevance of their answer on something as trivial as bad grammar is pretty presumptive and arrogant.|||Nope... I give a question less credibility if its ignorant and bigoted (usually trolls)...
Not everyone who posts here is fluent in english, and many have reasonable questions|||Yes, but it's admittedly a bad habit of mine. It's only a correlation: bad grammar and credibility.|||Kinda, but somethin jus feels write about' bein so dam rong. =)|||Not necessarily, since not everyone is a native speaker of English. That said, it doesn't help if the question/statement is already ignorant.|||I'm willing to let grammar slide,but with a built in spell checker,there is no excuse for misspelling,English speaker or no.|||The problem I see is that your view is their grammer is wrong, but that does not make it wrong if it is their dialect of writing.|||The less effort someone puts into communicating an idea, the less their idea is worth to me.|||Dear asker, I wish for the day this "issue" would be the
only thing that's wrong.
Peace|||not if the substance is credible, i rarely check my spelling/grammar unless i am pointing out someone elses lack of grammar|||no i look only at content.
In my experience the wisest people are actually the least formally educated.|||Your being to harsh. Their trying they're best, but its people like you who isn't gave them a second chance.|||no. i type pretty fast so i don't always use correct grammar although i know what is correct.|||how cud u posubleh tink n e diffrently abote my typpenng when is liek this?
I assume a 4 year old is licking the keyboard when I see that|||i Never seen anythning rong with anything$?|||I just don't read it. Too much headache to interpret it.|||Yes. How often do you see a great answer with poor grammar and spelling?|||i just learned the difference between There and Their :)|||yes i due.
That said, your examples are all about spelling. For some, English may not be their native language and English is a serious bytche when it comes to spelling.
I try to read a question for content, I've seen some really good questions/answers that were hard to read because of the spelling/grammar errors but they conveyed some really good thoughts. So you do have to overlook things sometimes, although I admit I have a bias towards proper language usage.
Blessings on your Journey!|||I can say with all honesty that no I try and answer every single question with dignity towards the questioner.
There are many reasons why bad grammar occurs. Yes it can be through laziness, but what if the person is stressed or upset? Also the English language is not so easy to understand and it is very easy to make mistakes.
As strange as it may seem, but with modern technology these days, there are those who probably illiterate due to bad education, but can handle a computer with their eyes closed!
I admit that when I read the errors, I think: why did you not use the spell check? But that is as far as it goes, because we all make errors - just some of ours tend to proof read before pressing the send button.
I made three errors just on this!|||Not really. Many people here are not native speakers to English, hence the incorrect grammar. These are usually easy to spot. Many people suffer from dyslexia, as well. My brother, for instance, has severe dyslexia. Having proof-read many of his essays, his spelling is atrocious! He doesn't have much trouble with grammar, though. They honestly can't help it - so I don't judge. What matters is whether the idea is being communicated efficiently or not.
If the answer is literally unintelligible and makes no sense whatsoever, I definitely give it less credibility. If it's in "texting" language, the poster does lose credibility. If people don't know what a period is, that gets annoying.|||Someone who is clearly illiterate is almost certain to be uneducated and uninformed also.
Bad spelling is not a strong indicator of illiteracy (even people with dyslexia spell atrociously, though they are hardly disadvantaged at all). Bad grammar, and especially wrong word choices, are nearly always indicative of serious problems.|||It bores me to death if people give me spelling lessons, often people fail to realise that spelling in English, which I use, is different than American spelling. I don't correct anybody, I just have a crack at the questions.
You can't gain intellectual superiority by ignoring a question and picking holes in spelling.
If you try to, it just shows you can't answer the question but you got annoyed by it.|||No. I know plenty of intelligent, rational people who are awful at spelling. To judge a person's rationality, intelligence, and the relevance of their answer on something as trivial as bad grammar is pretty presumptive and arrogant.|||Nope... I give a question less credibility if its ignorant and bigoted (usually trolls)...
Not everyone who posts here is fluent in english, and many have reasonable questions|||Yes, but it's admittedly a bad habit of mine. It's only a correlation: bad grammar and credibility.|||Kinda, but somethin jus feels write about' bein so dam rong. =)|||Not necessarily, since not everyone is a native speaker of English. That said, it doesn't help if the question/statement is already ignorant.|||I'm willing to let grammar slide,but with a built in spell checker,there is no excuse for misspelling,English speaker or no.|||The problem I see is that your view is their grammer is wrong, but that does not make it wrong if it is their dialect of writing.|||The less effort someone puts into communicating an idea, the less their idea is worth to me.|||Dear asker, I wish for the day this "issue" would be the
only thing that's wrong.
Peace|||not if the substance is credible, i rarely check my spelling/grammar unless i am pointing out someone elses lack of grammar|||no i look only at content.
In my experience the wisest people are actually the least formally educated.|||Your being to harsh. Their trying they're best, but its people like you who isn't gave them a second chance.|||no. i type pretty fast so i don't always use correct grammar although i know what is correct.|||how cud u posubleh tink n e diffrently abote my typpenng when is liek this?
I assume a 4 year old is licking the keyboard when I see that|||i Never seen anythning rong with anything$?|||I just don't read it. Too much headache to interpret it.|||Yes. How often do you see a great answer with poor grammar and spelling?|||i just learned the difference between There and Their :)|||yes i due.
What do you think about the credibility of American based researches carried out?
For example, In one US based research they say coffee is extremely, in another one,they say,its very harmful.Suddenly they say one thing and then exactly suggest the opposite|||"To be handled with caution"
and to listen to your own body too.
Yeah I have heard in one that coffee is full of antioxydants, great for the onset of Alzeihmers and all that and next : the greatest evil !
Same with everything !!!
Eating too much fish will put your levels of mercury way high and lead to dementia but how do the Japanese cope ?
Too much pestercides and growth hormones in the meat : I could believe that alright. But recently I saw a doc saying that plastic containers could cause obesity !!! I think that was going a bit too far now.
Although feeding food colouring pallets to farmed salmons to make them very pink is true and going a bit too far !
Tap water is OK. No it is not ! Too full of x , y, z,,
Some stuff is true though and I had not noticed myself : buy some packed fresh meat and it is greyer in the center : it is old meat repackaged with new !!!
Where else on earth do you see bed-ridden 700 pounds individuals but in the US ? They are going to blame it on the plastic and the inside of the cans now ?
Calcium and milk are great to lose weight, next they are evils and to avoid at all cost.
Pasta: the same..
Soy is bad, soy is good, soy is bad, soy is good...either too much estrogen and the greatest stuff ever !
Fruits : to be avoided because they are too high in fructose.
(although produce with corn syrup everywhere..I think this is true)
Americans are so concerned with their weight and particularly women that magazines carry a new story ( or the same one for the 500th time) every week !
I think they eat way too much in my opinion. And the wrong foods : too salty, too many preservatives, too much sugar..pizzas, fast food etc. An american serving would serve 5 Europeans !
I think corporations and lobbies have something to do with it too..and want to silent some doctors and specialists.
and to listen to your own body too.
Yeah I have heard in one that coffee is full of antioxydants, great for the onset of Alzeihmers and all that and next : the greatest evil !
Same with everything !!!
Eating too much fish will put your levels of mercury way high and lead to dementia but how do the Japanese cope ?
Too much pestercides and growth hormones in the meat : I could believe that alright. But recently I saw a doc saying that plastic containers could cause obesity !!! I think that was going a bit too far now.
Although feeding food colouring pallets to farmed salmons to make them very pink is true and going a bit too far !
Tap water is OK. No it is not ! Too full of x , y, z,,
Some stuff is true though and I had not noticed myself : buy some packed fresh meat and it is greyer in the center : it is old meat repackaged with new !!!
Where else on earth do you see bed-ridden 700 pounds individuals but in the US ? They are going to blame it on the plastic and the inside of the cans now ?
Calcium and milk are great to lose weight, next they are evils and to avoid at all cost.
Pasta: the same..
Soy is bad, soy is good, soy is bad, soy is good...either too much estrogen and the greatest stuff ever !
Fruits : to be avoided because they are too high in fructose.
(although produce with corn syrup everywhere..I think this is true)
Americans are so concerned with their weight and particularly women that magazines carry a new story ( or the same one for the 500th time) every week !
I think they eat way too much in my opinion. And the wrong foods : too salty, too many preservatives, too much sugar..pizzas, fast food etc. An american serving would serve 5 Europeans !
I think corporations and lobbies have something to do with it too..and want to silent some doctors and specialists.
Why did obama appoint 15 recess appointees that are damaged goods with no credibility?
He said this
Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005|||Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. His appointments are another warning sign to business to wait out his administration in order to expand employment, he is unfriendly to business.|||Link/source please.|||Yeah, well...he's in charge now %26amp; he'd rather have his homies alongside....even ifthey are damaged goods.|||Because he could.|||Bush made 173 recess appointments.|||I think he has fully given up one his "Avoiding the politics as usual" When he realized having power is fun and his supporters will march behind him no matter what he does.|||The Republicans were holding up 77 of his appointees for no reason other than obstruction. At this point in his first term, Bush had 5 that were being held up, and even then he made 15 recess appointments. I think back in 2005 Obama had underestimated the extent that the Republicans would go to just to create obstacles to his success.
Despite facing record obstruction, Obama has until now refused to use his recess appointment power, to the chagrin of many of his own supporters. By invoking his power, Obama's signaling to Senate Republicans that they can't delay or block him from staffing up his administration and expect to get away with it.
As the White House was careful to remind, Obama's nominees have faced far more obstruction from the GOP minority than Bush's did from Senate Democrats.
"Most of the men and women whose appointments I am announcing today were approved by Senate committees months ago, yet still await a vote of the Senate," said Obama in a weekend statement. " At a time of economic emergency, two top appointees to the Department of Treasury have been held up for nearly six months. I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government."
And on the official White House blog spokeswoman Jen Psaki noted, "[A]t this time in 2002, President Bush had only 5 nominees pending on the floor. By contrast, President Obama has 77 nominees currently pending on the floor, 58 of whom have been waiting for over two weeks and 44 of those have been waiting more than a month."|||Why not Bush had 170 recess appointments.|||You whiners are just hopping mad that Obama finally took the gloves off and is getting things done the way Bush did.
He tried being Civil - it didn't work. So he's doing the job America elected him to do ON HIS OWN!!!|||I wish you can provide a link so we can come to the same finding that President Bush appointed someone was a set of "damaged good". As for the 15 appointed by President Obama, most were hold up by Senators to make point that had no bearing on the appointees. Below is a short biography of one. There is no way he is damaged goods.
"Bersin was an all-Ivy star football player at Harvard. Then he went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. Then he went to Yale Law School. Then he was a U.S. Attorney in California. Then he was head of a Justice Department unit overseeing US-Mexico border affairs. Then the head of the San Diego school system. Then the Secretary of Education for California, under Arnold Schwarzenegger. Recently he has been an Assistant Secretary at DHS. Last month the past three commissioners of CBP, including two from the GW Bush administration, wrote to Republican Senators asking them, please, to get Bersin into the job rather than leaving this very important agency leaderless. "
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive…|||the same reason he was against taxing health care policies.now it is law. he is a typical politician. no better, no worse.|||5 years ago, President Bush was not facing the obstructionism that President Obama now faces with the "party-before-country" GOP.|||its getting close nov 10 2010 a battle is on,,,obama did that to show power and all dc politicians are damaged goods... carry on my dear...baron chief minister of faith PNAC|||Ooooo...but now HE'S in charge! Dif game %26amp; POWER is what he wants.|||I always like to do a little research when someone cites quotes that are two words long and unsourced.
Obama was speaking of a single recess appointment, that of the diplomacy-hating diplomat John Bolton.
"To some degree, he's damaged goods," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "I think that means we'll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed."
From the Article:
Bush used a constitutional provision that allows presidents to make temporary appointments without Senate approval during a congressional recess, after Senate Democrats had refused to vote on Bolton's candidacy unless they received additional internal documents related to his tenure at the State Department.
...
His confirmation was complicated by accusations by intelligence officials that he pressured them to distort espionage reports to suit his views and then tried to retaliate against them when they would not comply. He also faced accusations that he harassed subordinates.
Carl Ford Jr., a former Bush administration assistant secretary of state, testified to Congress that Bolton was "a serial abuser" and "a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy," an extraordinary public statement for a Republican political appointee to make about an official of his own party.
...
Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, who opposed Bolton's confirmation, said, "I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton's baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations."|||Obama is shoring up the folks to push his agenda forward. It's all part of that Change thing he campaigned on only I don't think this what his his agenda is what voters had in mind.
Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005|||Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. His appointments are another warning sign to business to wait out his administration in order to expand employment, he is unfriendly to business.|||Link/source please.|||Yeah, well...he's in charge now %26amp; he'd rather have his homies alongside....even ifthey are damaged goods.|||Because he could.|||Bush made 173 recess appointments.|||I think he has fully given up one his "Avoiding the politics as usual" When he realized having power is fun and his supporters will march behind him no matter what he does.|||The Republicans were holding up 77 of his appointees for no reason other than obstruction. At this point in his first term, Bush had 5 that were being held up, and even then he made 15 recess appointments. I think back in 2005 Obama had underestimated the extent that the Republicans would go to just to create obstacles to his success.
Despite facing record obstruction, Obama has until now refused to use his recess appointment power, to the chagrin of many of his own supporters. By invoking his power, Obama's signaling to Senate Republicans that they can't delay or block him from staffing up his administration and expect to get away with it.
As the White House was careful to remind, Obama's nominees have faced far more obstruction from the GOP minority than Bush's did from Senate Democrats.
"Most of the men and women whose appointments I am announcing today were approved by Senate committees months ago, yet still await a vote of the Senate," said Obama in a weekend statement. " At a time of economic emergency, two top appointees to the Department of Treasury have been held up for nearly six months. I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government."
And on the official White House blog spokeswoman Jen Psaki noted, "[A]t this time in 2002, President Bush had only 5 nominees pending on the floor. By contrast, President Obama has 77 nominees currently pending on the floor, 58 of whom have been waiting for over two weeks and 44 of those have been waiting more than a month."|||Why not Bush had 170 recess appointments.|||You whiners are just hopping mad that Obama finally took the gloves off and is getting things done the way Bush did.
He tried being Civil - it didn't work. So he's doing the job America elected him to do ON HIS OWN!!!|||I wish you can provide a link so we can come to the same finding that President Bush appointed someone was a set of "damaged good". As for the 15 appointed by President Obama, most were hold up by Senators to make point that had no bearing on the appointees. Below is a short biography of one. There is no way he is damaged goods.
"Bersin was an all-Ivy star football player at Harvard. Then he went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. Then he went to Yale Law School. Then he was a U.S. Attorney in California. Then he was head of a Justice Department unit overseeing US-Mexico border affairs. Then the head of the San Diego school system. Then the Secretary of Education for California, under Arnold Schwarzenegger. Recently he has been an Assistant Secretary at DHS. Last month the past three commissioners of CBP, including two from the GW Bush administration, wrote to Republican Senators asking them, please, to get Bersin into the job rather than leaving this very important agency leaderless. "
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive…|||the same reason he was against taxing health care policies.now it is law. he is a typical politician. no better, no worse.|||5 years ago, President Bush was not facing the obstructionism that President Obama now faces with the "party-before-country" GOP.|||its getting close nov 10 2010 a battle is on,,,obama did that to show power and all dc politicians are damaged goods... carry on my dear...baron chief minister of faith PNAC|||Ooooo...but now HE'S in charge! Dif game %26amp; POWER is what he wants.|||I always like to do a little research when someone cites quotes that are two words long and unsourced.
Obama was speaking of a single recess appointment, that of the diplomacy-hating diplomat John Bolton.
"To some degree, he's damaged goods," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "I think that means we'll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed."
From the Article:
Bush used a constitutional provision that allows presidents to make temporary appointments without Senate approval during a congressional recess, after Senate Democrats had refused to vote on Bolton's candidacy unless they received additional internal documents related to his tenure at the State Department.
...
His confirmation was complicated by accusations by intelligence officials that he pressured them to distort espionage reports to suit his views and then tried to retaliate against them when they would not comply. He also faced accusations that he harassed subordinates.
Carl Ford Jr., a former Bush administration assistant secretary of state, testified to Congress that Bolton was "a serial abuser" and "a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy," an extraordinary public statement for a Republican political appointee to make about an official of his own party.
...
Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, who opposed Bolton's confirmation, said, "I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton's baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations."|||Obama is shoring up the folks to push his agenda forward. It's all part of that Change thing he campaigned on only I don't think this what his his agenda is what voters had in mind.
Why does anybody give Republicans any credibility when it comes to dealing with illegal immigration?
During the many years Republicans controlled congress they did nothing to increase spending to border enforcement or make tougher illegal immigration laws. The best they could come up with was a fence. As if someone is going to turn around after traveling hundreds or even thousands of miles and go back to their home country because of a fence.|||Criticizing our current immigration enforcement is NOT, by any means an endorsement of the republican handling of immigration enforcement during the Bush administration. There wasn't enough done then, there isn't enough done now. I can't believe people would even consider a second amnesty. Saying it is okay for ONE group of people to ignore the law makes it okay for everyone to ignore the law.|||I'm shocked that is your position. To turn and blame one party or the other on this issue is pretty useless though. Immigration has been an issue for more then 30 years now. Both sides have had opportunities to address it and neither has done much about it.It wouldn't be as big of an issue now either, if the country hadn't taken a dive.|||LIberals want all Americans to pay for the College for Illegal Immigrants! It took me TEN YEARS to pay for my college! Why should a ILLEGAL ! Who crossed over ILLEGALLY GET FREE COLLEGE? TOTAL BS!
Obama just wants MORE VOTES! SO he can continue to DESTROY OUR COUNTRY!|||GW Bush caused the number of illegal border crossings to DOUBLE when he announced his famous Guest Workers Program|||Well, the fence was better than the...nothing our current president put forth. They defunded the fence and added clerks with no authority to stop illegal immigrations.|||We need to get our military people home and station them along the border , give them live ammo.and orders to shot if they have to.|||Ya thats right for many years Republicans behaved just like Democrats , but ohhh the times they are a changing|||I agree with you. Replace the fence with mine fields and machine gun nests.|||coming up with a fence is more than your president is offering|||Good fences make good neighbors - Robert Frost.|||And who was in charge before the GOP?
Obama just wants MORE VOTES! SO he can continue to DESTROY OUR COUNTRY!|||GW Bush caused the number of illegal border crossings to DOUBLE when he announced his famous Guest Workers Program|||Well, the fence was better than the...nothing our current president put forth. They defunded the fence and added clerks with no authority to stop illegal immigrations.|||We need to get our military people home and station them along the border , give them live ammo.and orders to shot if they have to.|||Ya thats right for many years Republicans behaved just like Democrats , but ohhh the times they are a changing|||I agree with you. Replace the fence with mine fields and machine gun nests.|||coming up with a fence is more than your president is offering|||Good fences make good neighbors - Robert Frost.|||And who was in charge before the GOP?
What does credibility of information mean exactly?
Ok, here are my professor's words exactly....
In the first paragraph, using the overview of credible sources share with me an overview of the credibility of the information.
Help Me Please! I'm so lost|||the reliability of the information......can you rely on it with good confidence, is it most likely accurate and trustworthy.
In the first paragraph, using the overview of credible sources share with me an overview of the credibility of the information.
Help Me Please! I'm so lost|||the reliability of the information......can you rely on it with good confidence, is it most likely accurate and trustworthy.
Has the election of 0bama cost the liberals any and all credibility for the foreseeable future?
I think its safe to say that this is the end of liberal politics as we know it, what say you?|||I sure hope so,and for those who pray, let's pray for that.
What gives a certain religion credibility over all others?
What's your opinion?|||1) Practical consequences. Do certain religious beliefs inspire goodness in people? Do they lead people to feel better about themselves, help others, take responsibility for their actions?
2) Intellectual consequences. Are certain religious beliefs based on reason and evidence? Not logical positivism - empirical evidence and mathematical certainty are not the only ways to justify a belief as being rational, possible, or likely. But are the beliefs in question internally consistent and based upon some sort of observed phenomena? Does the religion offer philosophical flexibility? Does its theology adapt to new developments in logic and/or philosophy? Does the theological paradigm contain information that can help people gain a greater understanding of themselves or the world around them?
3) Social consequences. Does the religion offer a positive group dynamic? Do members take care of each other? Does the group augment the wider community? Do they work to achieve positive change in the surrounding culture?
Those are some of the elements that make some religions more credible than others. But "credible" really isn't the right word. There is a lot more to religion than just the validity of positive assertions. Whether or not a religion is valid is determined by its impact in the lives of its own members, as well as the wider surrounding culture. Whether or not they can accurately describe an event that might have occurred 2500 years ago is not particularly relevant.|||The resurrection of Jesus Christ is what gives Christianity credibility over all others. If He had not been resurrected it would mean he was just another "good man". He was indeed resurrected, which proves He is the Son of God whom God promised to send to the earth to redeem mankind and save them from the judgment to come. (whosoever will.)|||Either all religions are false or only one is true.
http://www.allaboutreligion.org/christia鈥?/a>
Christianity vs. Other Religions - What distinguishes Christianity from other religions?
When investigating Christianity vs. other religions, we see that Christianity is unique among the religions of the world for several reasons.
First, unlike other religions, Christianity is rooted in history and evidence. Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem in Judea during the reign of Caesar Augustus and was put to death by Pontius Pilate, a first century Roman Governor. The testimony of his life, death and resurrection is not only validated by credible eyewitness testimony but by credible extra-biblical evidence as well. No other religion can legitimately claim this kind of support from history and evidence.
Furthermore, of all the great religious leaders of the world (Buddha, Moses, Zoroaster, Lao Tzu, Muhammad), only Jesus claimed to be God in human flesh (Mark 14:62). And this was not an empty boast. For through the historically verifiable fact of resurrection Christ vindicated His claim to deity (Romans 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Other religions, such as Buddhism and Islam, claim miracles in support of their faith, however, unlike Christianity, such miracles lack historical validation.
Christianity vs. Other Religions
Finally, Christianity is unique in that it is a coherent belief structure. Some Christian doctrines may transcend comprehension, however, unlike the claims of other religions, they are never irrational or contradictory. Christianity is also unique in that it cogently accounts for the vast array of phenomena we encounter in everyday life: the human mind, laws of science, laws of logic, ethical norms, justice, love, meaning in life, the problem of evil and suffering, and truth. In other words, Christianity corresponds with the reality of our present condition.
2 Peter 1:16 says, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."|||The only source of the superior credibility of one religion over others are the teachings of that particular religion. In other words, people will say that their religion is better than others for no reason other than that is the religion they practice.|||How accurately they adhere to God's word the bible.
Point to consider:
The trinity docrine was never/is never and will never be a bible teaching. The false concept contradicts itself entirely in the Hebrew scriptures, and they have to twist the words and its meaning to have a few scriptures that seem to say what they want in the Greek scriptures. But if you read the context of that scripture is would be obvious to you that, what they are trying to force, is in fact not what it says.......
(Deuteronomy 6:4) 鈥淟isten, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah
(Mark 12:29) Jesus answered: 鈥淭he first is, 鈥楬ear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah,|||If the land in which it was practiced and the people that practiced it had devoped the most admirable society and the religion appeared to be the major factor.|||Well, it would help if they could actually prove that their God exists. It would be even better if they could actually show you their God.
Of course, by this standard, sun worshipers are much more credible than Christians...|||Check-ability. The Bible has never been disproved. All of it is historically accurate as well as from any other discipline. No other writings are.|||The least amount of obese people.
Obese people are usually full of crap, literally and metaphorically.|||The belief in Jesus Christ. Son of God. Died by cruxifiction. Laid to rest. Rose from the dead. 3 days after death he arose as was told by the prophets.|||Legally, I'd say tax exempt status. Theologically, all religions are inventions of the human mind.|||The only truth is in the whole Bible where God speaks to man. All doctrines of religions come out of men's minds that is why they are all different.|||nothing.
none of them have credibility|||it is because there is only one truth out there... and all of them think they walk the true path...|||You dont have 2 gods do you? or do you
then there can only be 1|||revenue generated and organizational bureaucracy|||Death toll|||WHEN IT AGREES WITH THE GOOD BOOK which is all Trinity churches..|||history. look it up.
2) Intellectual consequences. Are certain religious beliefs based on reason and evidence? Not logical positivism - empirical evidence and mathematical certainty are not the only ways to justify a belief as being rational, possible, or likely. But are the beliefs in question internally consistent and based upon some sort of observed phenomena? Does the religion offer philosophical flexibility? Does its theology adapt to new developments in logic and/or philosophy? Does the theological paradigm contain information that can help people gain a greater understanding of themselves or the world around them?
3) Social consequences. Does the religion offer a positive group dynamic? Do members take care of each other? Does the group augment the wider community? Do they work to achieve positive change in the surrounding culture?
Those are some of the elements that make some religions more credible than others. But "credible" really isn't the right word. There is a lot more to religion than just the validity of positive assertions. Whether or not a religion is valid is determined by its impact in the lives of its own members, as well as the wider surrounding culture. Whether or not they can accurately describe an event that might have occurred 2500 years ago is not particularly relevant.|||The resurrection of Jesus Christ is what gives Christianity credibility over all others. If He had not been resurrected it would mean he was just another "good man". He was indeed resurrected, which proves He is the Son of God whom God promised to send to the earth to redeem mankind and save them from the judgment to come. (whosoever will.)|||Either all religions are false or only one is true.
http://www.allaboutreligion.org/christia鈥?/a>
Christianity vs. Other Religions - What distinguishes Christianity from other religions?
When investigating Christianity vs. other religions, we see that Christianity is unique among the religions of the world for several reasons.
First, unlike other religions, Christianity is rooted in history and evidence. Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem in Judea during the reign of Caesar Augustus and was put to death by Pontius Pilate, a first century Roman Governor. The testimony of his life, death and resurrection is not only validated by credible eyewitness testimony but by credible extra-biblical evidence as well. No other religion can legitimately claim this kind of support from history and evidence.
Furthermore, of all the great religious leaders of the world (Buddha, Moses, Zoroaster, Lao Tzu, Muhammad), only Jesus claimed to be God in human flesh (Mark 14:62). And this was not an empty boast. For through the historically verifiable fact of resurrection Christ vindicated His claim to deity (Romans 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Other religions, such as Buddhism and Islam, claim miracles in support of their faith, however, unlike Christianity, such miracles lack historical validation.
Christianity vs. Other Religions
Finally, Christianity is unique in that it is a coherent belief structure. Some Christian doctrines may transcend comprehension, however, unlike the claims of other religions, they are never irrational or contradictory. Christianity is also unique in that it cogently accounts for the vast array of phenomena we encounter in everyday life: the human mind, laws of science, laws of logic, ethical norms, justice, love, meaning in life, the problem of evil and suffering, and truth. In other words, Christianity corresponds with the reality of our present condition.
2 Peter 1:16 says, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."|||The only source of the superior credibility of one religion over others are the teachings of that particular religion. In other words, people will say that their religion is better than others for no reason other than that is the religion they practice.|||How accurately they adhere to God's word the bible.
Point to consider:
The trinity docrine was never/is never and will never be a bible teaching. The false concept contradicts itself entirely in the Hebrew scriptures, and they have to twist the words and its meaning to have a few scriptures that seem to say what they want in the Greek scriptures. But if you read the context of that scripture is would be obvious to you that, what they are trying to force, is in fact not what it says.......
(Deuteronomy 6:4) 鈥淟isten, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah
(Mark 12:29) Jesus answered: 鈥淭he first is, 鈥楬ear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah,|||If the land in which it was practiced and the people that practiced it had devoped the most admirable society and the religion appeared to be the major factor.|||Well, it would help if they could actually prove that their God exists. It would be even better if they could actually show you their God.
Of course, by this standard, sun worshipers are much more credible than Christians...|||Check-ability. The Bible has never been disproved. All of it is historically accurate as well as from any other discipline. No other writings are.|||The least amount of obese people.
Obese people are usually full of crap, literally and metaphorically.|||The belief in Jesus Christ. Son of God. Died by cruxifiction. Laid to rest. Rose from the dead. 3 days after death he arose as was told by the prophets.|||Legally, I'd say tax exempt status. Theologically, all religions are inventions of the human mind.|||The only truth is in the whole Bible where God speaks to man. All doctrines of religions come out of men's minds that is why they are all different.|||nothing.
none of them have credibility|||it is because there is only one truth out there... and all of them think they walk the true path...|||You dont have 2 gods do you? or do you
then there can only be 1|||revenue generated and organizational bureaucracy|||Death toll|||WHEN IT AGREES WITH THE GOOD BOOK which is all Trinity churches..|||history. look it up.
What would it take for Liberals on YA to gain some credibility?
What could they do to prove to you that they aren't just government butt kissing clowns?|||We already have all the credibility.
You have FOX News.|||Hey Enzyte, are these just feelings?
The answer is that Conservatives would have to regain the ability to accept factual information.
Currently, some Conservativeshave trouble accepting information outside of that which they already want to believe. When they are presented with information that contradicts their beliefs, they often attack the reporter and accuse them of bias. To give Liberals credibility, more Conservatives would have to regain the ability to weigh evidence objectively, admit when they are wrong, and be intellectually honest. There are proud traditions of intellectual Conservatism based on reason, but I fear that they are waning now, and being replaced by know-nothingism.
Quick example, 45,000 Americans die every year right now from lack of medical coverage. The health reform plans will eliminate nearly all of this pointless death and the even larger amount of agony and fear that this system causes. Yet, Conservatives including Governor Palin spread the talking points that the new health plans have "death panels" and they have compared health reform to nazi death camps.
The non - partisan CBO has concluded that the reform plans will reduce the deficit by $100 billion by 2019, yet Conservatives publically claim that it will bankrupt the country.
An even clearer case is global warming. Many Conservatives deny that it is really happening, based largely on the opinions of people like Rush Limbaugh. They give his opinion more weight than these sources, all of which have concluded that global warming is happening beyond any doubt, and that it is more than 90% likely to be manmade;
Senator John McCain
NASA
NOAA - Pres. Bush gave them $904 million of your tax dollars in 2007.
US National Academy of Science
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Joint Science Acadmies' Statement
American Meteorological Society
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Climate Change Science Program
United States Geological Survey
US Dept of Transportation
US Dept of Energy
US Dept of Defense
US Dept of Agriculture
Central Intelligence Agency|||Facts, History, and verifiable statistics are like Kryptonite to liberals.
They speak only about emotions and how they "FEEL"
If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you said 鈥?unless you were, in fact, talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.|||To offer pragmatic discussion, opinion and debate, but what is even more apparent, you have lost all sense of objectiveness because of your over zealot partisanship.
.
I'm an independent|||Maybe they could figure out that all the news stations are biased instead of thinking that the ones that tell them what they want to hear are being honest.|||I'm just me being me, but when someones starts labeling me I'm not butt kissing, I'm *** kicking.|||Credibility on a website that is worth ****?|||Respect from idiots and $4 wont buy a latte.|||conseratives are the same when a republican is in office....|||Move to Cuba|||A Zebra can't change their strips|||an act of god
You have FOX News.|||Hey Enzyte, are these just feelings?
The answer is that Conservatives would have to regain the ability to accept factual information.
Currently, some Conservativeshave trouble accepting information outside of that which they already want to believe. When they are presented with information that contradicts their beliefs, they often attack the reporter and accuse them of bias. To give Liberals credibility, more Conservatives would have to regain the ability to weigh evidence objectively, admit when they are wrong, and be intellectually honest. There are proud traditions of intellectual Conservatism based on reason, but I fear that they are waning now, and being replaced by know-nothingism.
Quick example, 45,000 Americans die every year right now from lack of medical coverage. The health reform plans will eliminate nearly all of this pointless death and the even larger amount of agony and fear that this system causes. Yet, Conservatives including Governor Palin spread the talking points that the new health plans have "death panels" and they have compared health reform to nazi death camps.
The non - partisan CBO has concluded that the reform plans will reduce the deficit by $100 billion by 2019, yet Conservatives publically claim that it will bankrupt the country.
An even clearer case is global warming. Many Conservatives deny that it is really happening, based largely on the opinions of people like Rush Limbaugh. They give his opinion more weight than these sources, all of which have concluded that global warming is happening beyond any doubt, and that it is more than 90% likely to be manmade;
Senator John McCain
NASA
NOAA - Pres. Bush gave them $904 million of your tax dollars in 2007.
US National Academy of Science
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Joint Science Acadmies' Statement
American Meteorological Society
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Climate Change Science Program
United States Geological Survey
US Dept of Transportation
US Dept of Energy
US Dept of Defense
US Dept of Agriculture
Central Intelligence Agency|||Facts, History, and verifiable statistics are like Kryptonite to liberals.
They speak only about emotions and how they "FEEL"
If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you said 鈥?unless you were, in fact, talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.|||To offer pragmatic discussion, opinion and debate, but what is even more apparent, you have lost all sense of objectiveness because of your over zealot partisanship.
.
I'm an independent|||Maybe they could figure out that all the news stations are biased instead of thinking that the ones that tell them what they want to hear are being honest.|||I'm just me being me, but when someones starts labeling me I'm not butt kissing, I'm *** kicking.|||Credibility on a website that is worth ****?|||Respect from idiots and $4 wont buy a latte.|||conseratives are the same when a republican is in office....|||Move to Cuba|||A Zebra can't change their strips|||an act of god
What is the difference in credibility of these two construction management programs.?
I am currently a Construction Management student at Pennsylvania College of Technology and am looking to transfer to Temple Universities program. Are there any pros and cons to this? Is one better than the other? Will one look better on a resume than another? Thank you for your help.|||For Construction Management BS degrees, the main accreditation body is called the American Council for Construction Education (ACCE). On its website is has a list of accredited programs and programs that are pending accreditation. They require each accredited program to meet specific course content requirements that the construction industry has supported since the group was originally formed by the construction industry in the late 1960's. As long as a program has ACCE accreditation, it is a nationally accepted degree in construction management. Large employers hire graduates across the US but if you want to work at more of a regional company, many of them support the local university and hire their graduates first.
Engineering and engineering technology programs are accredited by accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). ABET is a good accrediting body as well. Most all the Construction Engineering Technology programs would be more ABET accredited. It looks like PCT is ACCE and Temple is ABET. I would encourage you to research both accrediting bodies to see the difference in what they do for construction programs and make the best educated decision on your future plans.
I would say overall for the construction industry, if you are a highly motivated, problem solver, that has good oral and written communication skills they industry would have no problem hiring you from either university.
Engineering and engineering technology programs are accredited by accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). ABET is a good accrediting body as well. Most all the Construction Engineering Technology programs would be more ABET accredited. It looks like PCT is ACCE and Temple is ABET. I would encourage you to research both accrediting bodies to see the difference in what they do for construction programs and make the best educated decision on your future plans.
I would say overall for the construction industry, if you are a highly motivated, problem solver, that has good oral and written communication skills they industry would have no problem hiring you from either university.
How can I trust the credibility of this company "Agrigold Farms" Vijayawada based company?
This company is based in Vijayawada. They have a scheme wherein you invest Rs.600 every month for 25 months. At the end of 30 months you get 16800Rs. Can I trust them and invest or is it a bogus company.|||Dear Suma,
The return the company is giving you is about equal to 7% per year return. I do not know about the company, but the returns they are offering is not extra ordinary. If you are able to find a bank that is ready to give you a 7% interest rate on a recurring deposit, you should get similar returns. Banks are safer to invest in.
I am also not sure, what the company is doing qualifies as banking.This company, surely, would not have a banking license. Beware it is safe to put your money in a fixed deposit of a bank.
Hope this answer is of some help.
Regards,
Ripul
The return the company is giving you is about equal to 7% per year return. I do not know about the company, but the returns they are offering is not extra ordinary. If you are able to find a bank that is ready to give you a 7% interest rate on a recurring deposit, you should get similar returns. Banks are safer to invest in.
I am also not sure, what the company is doing qualifies as banking.This company, surely, would not have a banking license. Beware it is safe to put your money in a fixed deposit of a bank.
Hope this answer is of some help.
Regards,
Ripul
What gives any religion more credibility than any other?
They were ALL written by people. Not inspired by a deity. I suppose I just answered my own question.
The god of the bible is especially lackluster. In my opinion the Ceiling Cat theory holds more water.|||A religion has more credibility if it is based on verifiable historical events, and if those events involved persons who followed high moral standards.
In the case of Christianity, specific historical events such as the resurrection of Jesus after being tortured to death were verified by hundreds of witnesses, many of whom were still alive with the earliest accounts were written. The central figure in Christianity was Jesus, who followed high moral standards by rejecting sin and accepting death rather than renounce his teachings.
Competing faiths like Hinduism or Buddhism do not claim that God or gods intervened in history. The popular faith of Islam honors a warlord "prophet" not noted for his personal holiness (e.g., he kept a harem that included slave women, his adopted son's wife, and a 9-year-old child).
Cheers,
Bruce
The god of the bible is especially lackluster. In my opinion the Ceiling Cat theory holds more water.|||A religion has more credibility if it is based on verifiable historical events, and if those events involved persons who followed high moral standards.
In the case of Christianity, specific historical events such as the resurrection of Jesus after being tortured to death were verified by hundreds of witnesses, many of whom were still alive with the earliest accounts were written. The central figure in Christianity was Jesus, who followed high moral standards by rejecting sin and accepting death rather than renounce his teachings.
Competing faiths like Hinduism or Buddhism do not claim that God or gods intervened in history. The popular faith of Islam honors a warlord "prophet" not noted for his personal holiness (e.g., he kept a harem that included slave women, his adopted son's wife, and a 9-year-old child).
Cheers,
Bruce
Why do people automatically assume that those who badmouth others have credibility?
It seems that whenever someone starts a vicious rumor about another, people will automatically take that person's word as gospel without actually trying to get the maligned person's side of the story. Why is this? Why do people automatically assume that vicious rumors are true? Is it because people like to assume the worst about others?|||Yes, I think you've answered your own question. When people do not feel good about themselves, they tend to want to believe the worst about other people. If you know someone who is self confident you will see that they do not harbours those same feelings These self confident people judge people on their own merits.|||I fell in love and admiration with such a person who likes to start rumors. The first time I was a victim of her lying, I realized she might have issues. When someone else I knew became a victim, I knew for sure and was always watchful and worried around her. Things will never be the same. I wondered for a long time why do people believe her, thinking they just wanted to assume the worst about people who are easier to assume it about. Then over time, those people she lied to got to see what she does, and it became clear that A. eventually liars are found out and B. people believe a more credible witness. For example, if the person telling the lie is a middle or upper class person, older, charming, seems to have their head on straight, they can say whatever they want without proof if they speak of someone who is not the same as they. They are able to label someone guilty till the liar is proved guilty. It's so sad.|||"They" do? Are you sure about that? Remember YOUR credibility depends on your answer.|||yes, you answered your own question.
but remember, your answer is true only as a generality, not as an absolute. there are people who actually become weary of people who create and/or perpetuate salacious gossip/ rumors. there are people who will not participate in malicious behavior.|||It is because people will often believe what they want to believe. Sometimes all it takes is for one or just a few people to repeat it, and others will then believe it simply because they want to. Just look at all the lies told on President Bush. Many people already dislike him and are eager to believe more stories about him that reflect him in a negative light. The actual truth to these stories matters very little, so long as they are able to feed their desire to speak a certain way about someone they dislike.|||humannature? idk. it's stupid|||Unfortunately, yes. People LOVE getting the "dirt" on people (or THINKING they are..)...look what "ordinary" folks do to celebrities...it's the same thing...
Plus...misery LOVES company!|||as pathetic as it is, you are absolutely correct. people are often either too easily misdirected or mislead on rumors. that is a huge problem with society, which (I hate to being politics into this but..) is a big problem with our voting system. generally speaking, the person who can make their opponent look worse will inevetiably win ... and they get to be the ones to mess up our country!!|||I don't know either but I hate to be around people who are always talking about other nice people. They don't even get to know the person and yet they will spread rumors that are not true. I am often the person they are talking about. I don't know what they are saying. But I am sure it is bad stuff. The way they look at me. Why?
but remember, your answer is true only as a generality, not as an absolute. there are people who actually become weary of people who create and/or perpetuate salacious gossip/ rumors. there are people who will not participate in malicious behavior.|||It is because people will often believe what they want to believe. Sometimes all it takes is for one or just a few people to repeat it, and others will then believe it simply because they want to. Just look at all the lies told on President Bush. Many people already dislike him and are eager to believe more stories about him that reflect him in a negative light. The actual truth to these stories matters very little, so long as they are able to feed their desire to speak a certain way about someone they dislike.|||humannature? idk. it's stupid|||Unfortunately, yes. People LOVE getting the "dirt" on people (or THINKING they are..)...look what "ordinary" folks do to celebrities...it's the same thing...
Plus...misery LOVES company!|||as pathetic as it is, you are absolutely correct. people are often either too easily misdirected or mislead on rumors. that is a huge problem with society, which (I hate to being politics into this but..) is a big problem with our voting system. generally speaking, the person who can make their opponent look worse will inevetiably win ... and they get to be the ones to mess up our country!!|||I don't know either but I hate to be around people who are always talking about other nice people. They don't even get to know the person and yet they will spread rumors that are not true. I am often the person they are talking about. I don't know what they are saying. But I am sure it is bad stuff. The way they look at me. Why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)