Shane Sparks is an experienced choreographer and JC Chasez, while a stretch, has been in the game for awhile and was a member of a famous group and did videos and concerts. But Lil Mama is 19 years old! She's younger than many of the contestants! She hasn't been in the game that long...what credibility does she have to pass an opinion?|||I wonder the same thing too!
Maybe she did some 'special' favors to get that spot...|||i asked the same question to all my friends...she cant even dance good so how can she judge people that dance better than her...?|||LIL MAMA IS 19!!?? i thought she was at least in her mid 20s!|||Alot!!!!! Just watch her vids, and you'll see why!!!!
Friday, December 2, 2011
Does it hurt your credibility on here if you express an attitude in your answer, save inappropriate questions?
I've asked frank questions before about politics, race, and men-women relations. I always get a few people who, no matter how carefully I word my question snap at me.
I'm pretty sure I can't win, and some people just wanna just take it the wrong way no matter what, and just want blood.|||There was a questioner here not long ago who asked a couple of mental health questions, one about a malign ghostly presence in her life and one about alternatives to Prozac to enable her to feel emotions again.
I suggested that the appearance of the Grim Reaper is not necessarily a bad thing, and has scared many people back to life, but I was snapped at by the Asker making me out to be really nasty for giving that answer. So in a fit of pique, I blocked her and deleted my other answer which might have helped her a great deal.
I feel a little bad now, since I knew someone who killed herself when coming off Prozac, and was showing much the same symptoms of paranoia that came out in the first question, and similar unreasonable angry responses. My deleted answer might have saved her life, but too bad.
It is hard deciding whether an Asker is seeking an imaginative response or a dry factual summary. I take the view that if he or she gets both, they can take their pick. It probably won't be the best answer (three-quarters of mine aren't), but does it matter?
Especially if it provokes someone underneath to come up with a much better answer.
As for snapping at Askers, if I ask a provocative question, I don't personally mind a provocative answer I can come back at.|||And there will always be. But just be your self and keep asking cause there are a whole lot more people who do get it.
I'm pretty sure I can't win, and some people just wanna just take it the wrong way no matter what, and just want blood.|||There was a questioner here not long ago who asked a couple of mental health questions, one about a malign ghostly presence in her life and one about alternatives to Prozac to enable her to feel emotions again.
I suggested that the appearance of the Grim Reaper is not necessarily a bad thing, and has scared many people back to life, but I was snapped at by the Asker making me out to be really nasty for giving that answer. So in a fit of pique, I blocked her and deleted my other answer which might have helped her a great deal.
I feel a little bad now, since I knew someone who killed herself when coming off Prozac, and was showing much the same symptoms of paranoia that came out in the first question, and similar unreasonable angry responses. My deleted answer might have saved her life, but too bad.
It is hard deciding whether an Asker is seeking an imaginative response or a dry factual summary. I take the view that if he or she gets both, they can take their pick. It probably won't be the best answer (three-quarters of mine aren't), but does it matter?
Especially if it provokes someone underneath to come up with a much better answer.
As for snapping at Askers, if I ask a provocative question, I don't personally mind a provocative answer I can come back at.|||And there will always be. But just be your self and keep asking cause there are a whole lot more people who do get it.
Totmom: Do you think that laughing during the defense's closing arguments ruins the prosecutions credibility?
I personally felt Casey was guilty until I saw the prosecutor smirking and laughing. That tells me that he thinks it's a game and shouldn't be trusted. If I was on the jury, I would refuse to convict because of that. A life is on the line, it's not a smirky game of grabass. How do you feel about the prosecution's behavior today?|||"I personally felt Casey was guilty until I saw the prosecutor smirking"
Wow.|||I believe the prosecutor was playing games and did not need to for the "trial" and guilty sake. He did a good job of explaining the time line and the reason of why Calee was killed by her mother. BUT, I think there is alot of competion of egos going on between Beaz an Ashton.|||I do not believe it will harm the state against casey Anthony. It was later discovered that the jury could not see him, but I believe it was not very professional. Also Hosea Baize should never call his client a liar and a slut.|||You should watch it on the really big HDTV in a room full of college students, who did weed. They were laughing during most of that performance. When it was over these guys were chanting " WHO BLEW THE CASE, LINDA DRAIN YURDICK, THE LAWYWER WHO SUCKS!|||Of course not. That's ridiculous.|||They turned it into a three ring circus. Shame on them.|||no
Wow.|||I believe the prosecutor was playing games and did not need to for the "trial" and guilty sake. He did a good job of explaining the time line and the reason of why Calee was killed by her mother. BUT, I think there is alot of competion of egos going on between Beaz an Ashton.|||I do not believe it will harm the state against casey Anthony. It was later discovered that the jury could not see him, but I believe it was not very professional. Also Hosea Baize should never call his client a liar and a slut.|||You should watch it on the really big HDTV in a room full of college students, who did weed. They were laughing during most of that performance. When it was over these guys were chanting " WHO BLEW THE CASE, LINDA DRAIN YURDICK, THE LAWYWER WHO SUCKS!|||Of course not. That's ridiculous.|||They turned it into a three ring circus. Shame on them.|||no
Do you think the credibility of the Tea Party is threatened by the wing-nuts who show up at the rallies?
I like the ideals of smaller government and more responsible taxation. But whenever I see footage of a Tea Party rally there are always people with signs reading, "Obama is a Nazi" or "Keep the change" or some other meaningless catch-phrase. I'd really like to get behind a movement that represented responsible and intelligent opposition to large government - but no such movement exists.|||They think they're the "real" conservatives that are going to save the day. Moderate (RINO)Republicans need not apply. Try winning elections with that formula. They're digging their own grave. It benefits Democrats and that's good for the rest of us|||They have no credibility in the first place. What they are demanding, (lower taxes, reduce the deficit) without cutting the military, social security, and Medicare, is impossible. If you look at the clips, you'll see mostly middle-aged white men, who are crapping their drawers at losing their priveleged places to women and minorities. Things are changing, and they don't like it.
By definition, conservatives are resistant to change. With a minority President beating an establishment white guy in the last election, it's too much for them. The Republicans have been preparing the conservatives for over a year now, with all their propaganda over False news and Rush Bimbaugh. You can bet the GOP has its grubby mitts all over the TEA party, why else would Sarah Palin bother to be speaking (aside from the six-figure fees) to them?
The only "movement" that's taking place in conservativedom is appearing between Limbaugh's butt cheeks. These aregenerally people that don't even know what a Nazi is. Check out the Coffee Party. They say they are an alternative to the lunatic fringe of the teabaggers. The teabaggers are generally well-meaning, but they've allowed some unsavory characters to grab the reins.
Too bad.|||If you want to be taken seriously then don't associate yourself with the Tea Party. Just be a normal Republican. I went with my best friend yesterday to take her 16 month old daughter to the park, and there was a tea party rally, guns and everything. Taking guns around children at play, nice. These people are savages and have no sanity. There are plenty of conservatives and Republicans that aren't foaming at the mouth like those fools.|||They are. The Tea Party has great values "the tea party patriots" which is the group that I am in. But yes we have some ignorant people that join just because they like to fight. sort of like the anarchists that join in the liberal protests.
but if you hear that tea party members are old white men... then you know that those people that are saying it are uneducated. me and the other members in my disctrict are not middle aged white right. I'm young and hispanic. along with the other members we have most races and ages. the tea party members in my area are actual middle class workers which we don't protest we actually get involved politically.
but people will say what they want and believe what they want.
and yes we can have a balanced budget. it's called get rid or reform current social programs and stop spending money to save it. the smaller the government gets the less they spend.
its called common sense. help the people who work and provide tax. and stop helping those who abuse it ... and before im missquoted.. yes people need help sometimes. but you can only help so much before you drap everyone down. help society not the individual.|||yes!...no reasonable person take tea party protesters seriously....
I'm definitely joining the teabaggers ... I'm madly in love with that self-loathing sick-minded hatemongering, . I'll cry acorn across the world, I'll pester immigrants early in the morning at Home Depot, I'll demand IDs from anyone that looks like a Mexican, I'll post guard at our borders and shoot anyone who dares crossing it from either side|||Wing nuts means they have big ears and their heads spin at anything ridiculous lie Fox TV tells them.|||In order to have your credibility threatened, you would need to have credibility in the first place. And the Tea Party just...does not. Sorry.|||The Tea Party has no credibility. Palin hijacked it. What does that tell you? She couldn't even handle four years as the governor of Alaska.|||The tea party IS the wing-nut section of the republican party.|||It's called libertarianism. I'm not trying to convert you to my party or anything, but I think you see that tea parties are nothing more than angry Republicans.|||short answer is YES! i hate politically and reality ignorant tea baggers! ;-)|||yes|||You're seeing the same clip over and over. Monkey brains.|||Are you saying the Teabaggers are a threat to themselves?|||They ARE the tea party.|||Yes -- those people don't realize that they are doing the Party no favors.|||When you see the footage of these people i would bet its on a liberal network like CNN or MSNBC. Its in their interests not to portray the Tea party as responsible or Intelligent. You want the truth go to a rally and see for yourself.
By definition, conservatives are resistant to change. With a minority President beating an establishment white guy in the last election, it's too much for them. The Republicans have been preparing the conservatives for over a year now, with all their propaganda over False news and Rush Bimbaugh. You can bet the GOP has its grubby mitts all over the TEA party, why else would Sarah Palin bother to be speaking (aside from the six-figure fees) to them?
The only "movement" that's taking place in conservativedom is appearing between Limbaugh's butt cheeks. These aregenerally people that don't even know what a Nazi is. Check out the Coffee Party. They say they are an alternative to the lunatic fringe of the teabaggers. The teabaggers are generally well-meaning, but they've allowed some unsavory characters to grab the reins.
Too bad.|||If you want to be taken seriously then don't associate yourself with the Tea Party. Just be a normal Republican. I went with my best friend yesterday to take her 16 month old daughter to the park, and there was a tea party rally, guns and everything. Taking guns around children at play, nice. These people are savages and have no sanity. There are plenty of conservatives and Republicans that aren't foaming at the mouth like those fools.|||They are. The Tea Party has great values "the tea party patriots" which is the group that I am in. But yes we have some ignorant people that join just because they like to fight. sort of like the anarchists that join in the liberal protests.
but if you hear that tea party members are old white men... then you know that those people that are saying it are uneducated. me and the other members in my disctrict are not middle aged white right. I'm young and hispanic. along with the other members we have most races and ages. the tea party members in my area are actual middle class workers which we don't protest we actually get involved politically.
but people will say what they want and believe what they want.
and yes we can have a balanced budget. it's called get rid or reform current social programs and stop spending money to save it. the smaller the government gets the less they spend.
its called common sense. help the people who work and provide tax. and stop helping those who abuse it ... and before im missquoted.. yes people need help sometimes. but you can only help so much before you drap everyone down. help society not the individual.|||yes!...no reasonable person take tea party protesters seriously....
I'm definitely joining the teabaggers ... I'm madly in love with that self-loathing sick-minded hatemongering, . I'll cry acorn across the world, I'll pester immigrants early in the morning at Home Depot, I'll demand IDs from anyone that looks like a Mexican, I'll post guard at our borders and shoot anyone who dares crossing it from either side|||Wing nuts means they have big ears and their heads spin at anything ridiculous lie Fox TV tells them.|||In order to have your credibility threatened, you would need to have credibility in the first place. And the Tea Party just...does not. Sorry.|||The Tea Party has no credibility. Palin hijacked it. What does that tell you? She couldn't even handle four years as the governor of Alaska.|||The tea party IS the wing-nut section of the republican party.|||It's called libertarianism. I'm not trying to convert you to my party or anything, but I think you see that tea parties are nothing more than angry Republicans.|||short answer is YES! i hate politically and reality ignorant tea baggers! ;-)|||yes|||You're seeing the same clip over and over. Monkey brains.|||Are you saying the Teabaggers are a threat to themselves?|||They ARE the tea party.|||Yes -- those people don't realize that they are doing the Party no favors.|||When you see the footage of these people i would bet its on a liberal network like CNN or MSNBC. Its in their interests not to portray the Tea party as responsible or Intelligent. You want the truth go to a rally and see for yourself.
Does Obama have any credibility to handle the current economic crisis?
What makes people think that he can tackle the housing mess and the Wall Street crisis? |||No, neither candidate does and it is hipe to believe the power of presdiency ever had that power. They never did and congress has the power. Most of the campaign promises do not fall within the power of the u.s. presidency to address. What president since Eisenhower has kept a campaign promise? None. The Bush administration with Congress could have easily prevented the economic recession, but they chose not to. Neither candidate has the ability to change anything and since Franklin D. Roosevelt the administratons
of JFK fought a money war, Carter lost the famly farmers, Reagon crushed unions, Clinton signed NAFTA cancelling Art 4 of the constitution, Bush and his father promoted their interests in the Carlyle Group, as 9th largest defense contractor. Had the elected offical not had financial interests in VietNam, Afghanastan, Iraq, there would have been no war. The U.S. did nothing to help the people of a South American country, who's blood filled the rivers by the millions because they was no oil under their ground. When theres oil involved, then the rights of people are important, but when theres no oil, millions of people can be butchered. I voted for OBama because the granddaughter of Eisenhower endorces him and her knowledge is deep, and goes back to the days when the U.S. was a united country. Thus far she is the only really credible source I have
faith in.
|||The fact that you think this is all being caused by the 'housing mess' means you have no clue what's happening.
Neither McCain or Obama can save us, the US is over, just hope you survive the horrid inflation that's coming next year. Stop playing bi-partisan games online and get ready.|||NO! People aren't thinking about the issues they just know a republican is president, things aren't going well and obama is as far from republican as you can get. people want change and they THINK "good" change will come with electing Obama. they couldn't be more wrong!|||Well, he had a 5 point agenda on how the amend the original Paulson bill on the bailout. Those points ended up in the bill that passed.
McCain suspended his campaign for a day and did nothing.|||The man that Obama wants for his top economic advisor won a nobel peace prize in economics right?
A smart man is smart, a smart man who surrounds himself with smart men is smarter.|||yea hes wayy better and smarter than mccain in that issue!! thats why more people are staring to vote for him! http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>|||Because he has a (D) next to his name
Obama is getting a free ride even though he has zero economic experience|||Well, he voted for the bailout that destroyed the market after it had stabilized. The thing is, so did McCain.
I'm going with "no" on both.|||Because he is extremely intelligent and know's what he is doing.
It's McCain and Palin that lack brains.
|||He is a peese of sh*t and a thief liar fraud and destructively horrible|||he can't his economic advisers created this problem|||does mccain?
and yes, barack obama does. -____-|||Obummer will just continue to make excuses after excuses|||Well lets see....Obama 173 days in the senate. McCain, 22 years.|||OH YEAH, NOT AS OLD MCCAIN WHO DONT THINK ON HIS OWN ANYMORE. :)|||No, but I really don't think McCain does either.|||No, he doesn't. No, I don't trust him to be President.|||Honestly, I don't think he has any credibility when it comes to the welfare of the U.S.
of JFK fought a money war, Carter lost the famly farmers, Reagon crushed unions, Clinton signed NAFTA cancelling Art 4 of the constitution, Bush and his father promoted their interests in the Carlyle Group, as 9th largest defense contractor. Had the elected offical not had financial interests in VietNam, Afghanastan, Iraq, there would have been no war. The U.S. did nothing to help the people of a South American country, who's blood filled the rivers by the millions because they was no oil under their ground. When theres oil involved, then the rights of people are important, but when theres no oil, millions of people can be butchered. I voted for OBama because the granddaughter of Eisenhower endorces him and her knowledge is deep, and goes back to the days when the U.S. was a united country. Thus far she is the only really credible source I have
faith in.
|||The fact that you think this is all being caused by the 'housing mess' means you have no clue what's happening.
Neither McCain or Obama can save us, the US is over, just hope you survive the horrid inflation that's coming next year. Stop playing bi-partisan games online and get ready.|||NO! People aren't thinking about the issues they just know a republican is president, things aren't going well and obama is as far from republican as you can get. people want change and they THINK "good" change will come with electing Obama. they couldn't be more wrong!|||Well, he had a 5 point agenda on how the amend the original Paulson bill on the bailout. Those points ended up in the bill that passed.
McCain suspended his campaign for a day and did nothing.|||The man that Obama wants for his top economic advisor won a nobel peace prize in economics right?
A smart man is smart, a smart man who surrounds himself with smart men is smarter.|||yea hes wayy better and smarter than mccain in that issue!! thats why more people are staring to vote for him! http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>|||Because he has a (D) next to his name
Obama is getting a free ride even though he has zero economic experience|||Well, he voted for the bailout that destroyed the market after it had stabilized. The thing is, so did McCain.
I'm going with "no" on both.|||Because he is extremely intelligent and know's what he is doing.
It's McCain and Palin that lack brains.
|||He is a peese of sh*t and a thief liar fraud and destructively horrible|||he can't his economic advisers created this problem|||does mccain?
and yes, barack obama does. -____-|||Obummer will just continue to make excuses after excuses|||Well lets see....Obama 173 days in the senate. McCain, 22 years.|||OH YEAH, NOT AS OLD MCCAIN WHO DONT THINK ON HIS OWN ANYMORE. :)|||No, but I really don't think McCain does either.|||No, he doesn't. No, I don't trust him to be President.|||Honestly, I don't think he has any credibility when it comes to the welfare of the U.S.
Do people lose their credibility when they criticize Mayweather?
A lot of fans don't like Mayweather because first he is black and a lot of people falsely stereotyped that all blacks act like that. Second, Mayweather is the best boxer and everybody knows that Mayweather can outboxed anybody so people are jealous. Third, Mayweather is the cash cow, he makes more than Pacquaio, Marquez, or Martinez combined in one fight.|||I think you have a few things mixed around. No one loses credibility for criticizing Mayweather. He brings a lot of that on himself. It's true that there are some who don't like him because he's Black but those numbers are very small. The bigger reason many people don't like Mayweather is because of his behavior.
Shane Mosley is also Black. His record does not LOOK as impressive as Mayweather's (though he has faced far tougher competition). Yet, people don't hate him. Only a very small group of people feel the way they do because of Floyd's race. Most feel the way they do because of his attitude.
If people would judge Blacks, in general, by Mayweather's behavior, they are sadly lacking in personal experience. Personally, I would not want a guy like Mayweather to ever claim to represent Blacks in any way. He has made it clear that he represents only himself.
There is one VERY IMPORTANT thing that Mayweather obviously NEVER learned. It's well known, at least by some, that Blacks have not had an easy time in American history, beginning with slavery. It is also well known of the many prejudices that Blacks have suffered. However, to be a Black man, and to practice such prejudices against others, is only counter productive. History is all the more reason why Blacks should understand that this is the one time when it's important to understand that "two wrongs don't make a right".
Some might disagree with me on this but, take Mayweather's racist tirade on You-Tube, against Pacquiao. When have you ever heard Pacquiao say anything negative about Blacks? Never.
If you feel that Blacks have been mistreated, throughout history, ask yourself if the mistreatment of others is the answer. If you believe it is the answer, than you make your life much harder than anyone else ever will. If Pacquiao ever said the same things about Mayweather, he'd be the first to cry racism. This is where he went from "self promoter" to "public enemy".
For a time, Mayweather was not the jerk he often portrayed himself to be. It's true that Mayweather's behavior was mostly self promoted. To his credit, he wanted to be a star from the beginning. It always helps to know what you want in life. He made it clear that he envied and disliked Oscar de la Hoya. While I can understand some of his reasoning, I don't agree with the way he handled it. Floyd realized that he would never be viewed in the same way that Oscar is viewed, even if he beat him in the ring. So he decided to sell tickets by becoming the villain. This was his choice.
While his choice was understandable, Floyd took it a bit too far when Pacquiao came along. It's clear that he feels upstaged by Pacquiao's presence. All the time it took for Oscar to retire and Floyd STILL does not get the public's respect. However, the problem is that he created much of that sentiment himself.
People like Pacquiao. He doesn't brag. He does a lot for his country and he's humble. As for the PPV numbers that Floyd often brags about, they are exaggerated and serve no purpose if he's inactive. It still appears that he's ducking Pacquiao or waiting for him to burn himself out. It's the "perception" that the public has and Floyd has caused much of that himself.
Regardless to how you feel about Pacquiao, if you can not see a few facts, you're just not very objective.
Fact: Pacquiao has a much more entertaining style. We boxing fans can appreciate Floyd's talent. But, what good is talent if you are not willing to face the best?
Fact: Pacquiao has always appeared to be humble and gracious. Whether or not you buy into it, you MUST understand that "pubic perception" is very powerful. It's what people SEE. Floyd is still probably not the jerk he appears to be. However, he seems to have started a path down a road from which he will not soon return. Again, the perception he gives people is not a good one.
Fact: In the eyes of people, it's FLOYD who keeps this proposed fight from happening. The drug test story can only go so far.
Floyd's racist tirade, against Pacquiao and against Filipinos, is where he made the turning point. There was NOTHING good about it and it was totally WRONG. It's where smart people separate him from decent Blacks and dumb people just have more ammunition to spew their racist venom. FLoyd did that to himself. He does not represent Blacks or Americans in any positive way.
He's a great athlete but the public perception that he has created for himself is that he is envious of Pacquiao's success and the way the public has taken to him. He appears unsure of his ability to beat Pacquiao in the ring and he fears what he looks like, should he lose.
Floyd is a great athlete. With his recent behavior, he has proven that he's not a great man.|||I don't think it's got nothing to do with him being black.People just don't like his personality and the way he acts sometimes,also some fans feel threatened by him because they know he's a threat to their fighter.You have to be a really big fan of Floyd and appreciate his talent in the ring to like him,if your neither of those then your just one of the many that want to see Floyd lose.A lot of it is just self-promotion which he's the master of and that's why he is where he is today,people sometimes forget the huge Charity work that he does and although i agree that he does shoot himself in the foot sometimes with some of the things he does or says,he isn't the monster everybody makes him out to be!!|||Obviously you have an opinion regarding race, and think that anyone that criticizes Mayweather must be doing so because he is black.
The only time someone loses credibility is when they have said something that is not true.
Many people criticize Mayweather because of the things he has said and done, it does not relate to his race, or ability.
The people on this forum who continue to call others rude and profane names are the ones without credibility.|||I think some people do lose credibility for the manner in which they criticize Floyd, especially if they aren't willing to examine their own favorite fighter under the same microscope. Anyone who starts in with the "ducker", "coward", "KFC" nonsense loses credibility with me. Anyone who says he only fights small guys when he has gone up to win titles in 5 weight classes loses credibility with me. Anyone who questions the fact of him being truly 41-0 loses credibility with me. Anyone who accuses him of cherry picking but cant see how their guy is cherry picking too loses credibility.
I agree with you that Floyd is one of the best fighters in the game still, possibly the best and he is one of it's bigger PPV draws (if not the biggest). Some of this nonsense is hate and jealousy and the rest sometimes is plain old racism.|||Cash cow? LOL, De La Hoya MADE Mayweather %26amp; Pacquiao. And those two UNGRATEFUL cowards are afraid to give younger fighters the very same opportunity. They are both over rated money grubbing cowards who could care less about that sport that made them rich and are contributing to the sports downfall but putting out GARBAGE fights rather than try to fight the best out there. You honestly think history is gonna put them favorably compared to other eras where the top guys actually wanted to fight each other? LOL, Keep dreaming!|||@Malik - if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it must be a duck.
if it looks like a PU$$Y, smells like a PU$$Y, acts like a PU$$Y, then it must be a PU$$Y.|||Yeah they're incredible!
@galactus
It hurts to hear that from a brother. Go easy on me man! I'm just making wise business decisions here. My life is on the line everytime I fight you know?
Shane Mosley is also Black. His record does not LOOK as impressive as Mayweather's (though he has faced far tougher competition). Yet, people don't hate him. Only a very small group of people feel the way they do because of Floyd's race. Most feel the way they do because of his attitude.
If people would judge Blacks, in general, by Mayweather's behavior, they are sadly lacking in personal experience. Personally, I would not want a guy like Mayweather to ever claim to represent Blacks in any way. He has made it clear that he represents only himself.
There is one VERY IMPORTANT thing that Mayweather obviously NEVER learned. It's well known, at least by some, that Blacks have not had an easy time in American history, beginning with slavery. It is also well known of the many prejudices that Blacks have suffered. However, to be a Black man, and to practice such prejudices against others, is only counter productive. History is all the more reason why Blacks should understand that this is the one time when it's important to understand that "two wrongs don't make a right".
Some might disagree with me on this but, take Mayweather's racist tirade on You-Tube, against Pacquiao. When have you ever heard Pacquiao say anything negative about Blacks? Never.
If you feel that Blacks have been mistreated, throughout history, ask yourself if the mistreatment of others is the answer. If you believe it is the answer, than you make your life much harder than anyone else ever will. If Pacquiao ever said the same things about Mayweather, he'd be the first to cry racism. This is where he went from "self promoter" to "public enemy".
For a time, Mayweather was not the jerk he often portrayed himself to be. It's true that Mayweather's behavior was mostly self promoted. To his credit, he wanted to be a star from the beginning. It always helps to know what you want in life. He made it clear that he envied and disliked Oscar de la Hoya. While I can understand some of his reasoning, I don't agree with the way he handled it. Floyd realized that he would never be viewed in the same way that Oscar is viewed, even if he beat him in the ring. So he decided to sell tickets by becoming the villain. This was his choice.
While his choice was understandable, Floyd took it a bit too far when Pacquiao came along. It's clear that he feels upstaged by Pacquiao's presence. All the time it took for Oscar to retire and Floyd STILL does not get the public's respect. However, the problem is that he created much of that sentiment himself.
People like Pacquiao. He doesn't brag. He does a lot for his country and he's humble. As for the PPV numbers that Floyd often brags about, they are exaggerated and serve no purpose if he's inactive. It still appears that he's ducking Pacquiao or waiting for him to burn himself out. It's the "perception" that the public has and Floyd has caused much of that himself.
Regardless to how you feel about Pacquiao, if you can not see a few facts, you're just not very objective.
Fact: Pacquiao has a much more entertaining style. We boxing fans can appreciate Floyd's talent. But, what good is talent if you are not willing to face the best?
Fact: Pacquiao has always appeared to be humble and gracious. Whether or not you buy into it, you MUST understand that "pubic perception" is very powerful. It's what people SEE. Floyd is still probably not the jerk he appears to be. However, he seems to have started a path down a road from which he will not soon return. Again, the perception he gives people is not a good one.
Fact: In the eyes of people, it's FLOYD who keeps this proposed fight from happening. The drug test story can only go so far.
Floyd's racist tirade, against Pacquiao and against Filipinos, is where he made the turning point. There was NOTHING good about it and it was totally WRONG. It's where smart people separate him from decent Blacks and dumb people just have more ammunition to spew their racist venom. FLoyd did that to himself. He does not represent Blacks or Americans in any positive way.
He's a great athlete but the public perception that he has created for himself is that he is envious of Pacquiao's success and the way the public has taken to him. He appears unsure of his ability to beat Pacquiao in the ring and he fears what he looks like, should he lose.
Floyd is a great athlete. With his recent behavior, he has proven that he's not a great man.|||I don't think it's got nothing to do with him being black.People just don't like his personality and the way he acts sometimes,also some fans feel threatened by him because they know he's a threat to their fighter.You have to be a really big fan of Floyd and appreciate his talent in the ring to like him,if your neither of those then your just one of the many that want to see Floyd lose.A lot of it is just self-promotion which he's the master of and that's why he is where he is today,people sometimes forget the huge Charity work that he does and although i agree that he does shoot himself in the foot sometimes with some of the things he does or says,he isn't the monster everybody makes him out to be!!|||Obviously you have an opinion regarding race, and think that anyone that criticizes Mayweather must be doing so because he is black.
The only time someone loses credibility is when they have said something that is not true.
Many people criticize Mayweather because of the things he has said and done, it does not relate to his race, or ability.
The people on this forum who continue to call others rude and profane names are the ones without credibility.|||I think some people do lose credibility for the manner in which they criticize Floyd, especially if they aren't willing to examine their own favorite fighter under the same microscope. Anyone who starts in with the "ducker", "coward", "KFC" nonsense loses credibility with me. Anyone who says he only fights small guys when he has gone up to win titles in 5 weight classes loses credibility with me. Anyone who questions the fact of him being truly 41-0 loses credibility with me. Anyone who accuses him of cherry picking but cant see how their guy is cherry picking too loses credibility.
I agree with you that Floyd is one of the best fighters in the game still, possibly the best and he is one of it's bigger PPV draws (if not the biggest). Some of this nonsense is hate and jealousy and the rest sometimes is plain old racism.|||Cash cow? LOL, De La Hoya MADE Mayweather %26amp; Pacquiao. And those two UNGRATEFUL cowards are afraid to give younger fighters the very same opportunity. They are both over rated money grubbing cowards who could care less about that sport that made them rich and are contributing to the sports downfall but putting out GARBAGE fights rather than try to fight the best out there. You honestly think history is gonna put them favorably compared to other eras where the top guys actually wanted to fight each other? LOL, Keep dreaming!|||@Malik - if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it must be a duck.
if it looks like a PU$$Y, smells like a PU$$Y, acts like a PU$$Y, then it must be a PU$$Y.|||Yeah they're incredible!
@galactus
It hurts to hear that from a brother. Go easy on me man! I'm just making wise business decisions here. My life is on the line everytime I fight you know?
Will NPR go the way of Media Matters in terms of credibility with their mutual sponsor with Media Matters?
How much credibility did NPR have to begin with since Terry Gross and other characters like her fouled up the public airwaves?|||NPR has been doing quite fine on its own, ruining its credibility! Soros' "pledge" only validates the serious slant both MM and NPR deliberately take.|||I would love to see you challenge something written at media matters.
Only thing conservatives do is make baseless attacks on people providing facts refuting republican lies.|||You guys are nothing but a bunch of smear-mongers. Media Matters For American hasn't lost any credibility.
Only thing conservatives do is make baseless attacks on people providing facts refuting republican lies.|||You guys are nothing but a bunch of smear-mongers. Media Matters For American hasn't lost any credibility.
What responsibilities should I list on my resume to sound educated and to increase credibility of PT jobs?
Good morning everyone!
I am trying to writing a resume for a business class and my work experience section is lacking. I'm having a hard time writing responsibilities for the following PT Jobs that look professional:
-Courtesy Clerk Ralphs (Grocery)
-Cashier/Pizza Chef at Papa Johns
-Quality Assurance Tester at THQ (Video game tester)
-Data Entry at my University
Any help would be surely appreciated. Thank you!|||I am not sure if I am too late answering this question, but you basically want to describe the job and what you did. They key is to use good keywords that standout.
Here are a few suggestions I came up with off the top of my head:
Courtesy Clerk at Ralph鈥檚 (Customer Service)
Handled customer complaints, comments, and suggestions.
Cashier/Pizza Chef (2 Different Positions)
Had multiple job responsibilities that included but were not limited to, pizza preparation, customer service, order taking, and money management.
Basically, the best thing to do is describe the job and what you did. On my resume, I like to use bullet points so I am not writing a huge paragraph that is difficult to read.|||according to me the best qualities is listed below
-Courtesy Clerk Ralphs (Grocery)
-Cashier/Pizza Chef at Papa Johns
-Quality Assurance Tester at THQ (Video game tester)
-Data Entry at my University
I am trying to writing a resume for a business class and my work experience section is lacking. I'm having a hard time writing responsibilities for the following PT Jobs that look professional:
-Courtesy Clerk Ralphs (Grocery)
-Cashier/Pizza Chef at Papa Johns
-Quality Assurance Tester at THQ (Video game tester)
-Data Entry at my University
Any help would be surely appreciated. Thank you!|||I am not sure if I am too late answering this question, but you basically want to describe the job and what you did. They key is to use good keywords that standout.
Here are a few suggestions I came up with off the top of my head:
Courtesy Clerk at Ralph鈥檚 (Customer Service)
Handled customer complaints, comments, and suggestions.
Cashier/Pizza Chef (2 Different Positions)
Had multiple job responsibilities that included but were not limited to, pizza preparation, customer service, order taking, and money management.
Basically, the best thing to do is describe the job and what you did. On my resume, I like to use bullet points so I am not writing a huge paragraph that is difficult to read.|||according to me the best qualities is listed below
-Courtesy Clerk Ralphs (Grocery)
-Cashier/Pizza Chef at Papa Johns
-Quality Assurance Tester at THQ (Video game tester)
-Data Entry at my University
Does a person's physical looks affect the credibility of their religious message?
Jesus is often shown as a slim, neatly bearded man, someone we would call handsome. If he was unattractive, how would that affect YOUR view of him?|||I've often asked how people who claim to be Christian would respond to Jesus walking into their Church, dressed as a carpenter dirtied by his days work; smelly and sweaty, hair messy, beard long and untrimmed.
Would he be allowed in, ushered to some secluded rear seat so as not to offend the membership, or would he guided up front and truly welcomed.
People prejudge; too fat, too thin, too tall, too short; all affecting how we perceive that persons intent behind their message, and what value we assess to them. GREAT QUESTION!|||Actually, he was probably a bearded worn man by the age of thirty instead of a handsome flesh-of-god person. The life expectancy for people then was substantially smaller than now. His words and viewpoints carried him.
But, you said "person's physical looks" but then you siphoned it down to Jesus. It's well known that a good countenance (charisma) will attract followers. Even when Charles Manson was found guilty, his followers believed in his message. He certainly didn't look all that handsome.|||I have heard complaints on Jesus' image in church. He is made to look Nordic in paintings; even Blue Eyes! He was Semitic; so he probably had black hair, dark eyes and skin, and a Big nose.
Yes--we are only Human. How someone looks does affect us. We can't help it; only God can blind us to someones looks.|||Well have you ever seen a serious religion with an ugly messiah?
Have you even seen an ugly deformed preacher? They're non-existent. Aesthetics and symbolism has a lot to do with religion.|||Is shouldn't do. I guess it is possible.|||According to scripture, He was not very handsome at all, and neither was Paul. On top of that, Paul probably had a speech impediment.
So, the answer would be, "no".|||He WAS unattractive. It has obviously effected our view of him, since, in most cases, he has been viewed as handsome.|||Street people that come up to me and tell me to accept Jesus and prepare for the end of the world are frightening. Mental illness always is.|||Yes, it does. For example, I would be less likely to trust the religious message put forth by an ungodly young woman wearing make-up and dressed like a slut.|||it shouldn't matter but it does. There have been several studies done on attractiveness and showing how others treat people who are better looking.|||Sure, do you think that middle class white Christians would worship a black "god"? It would never happen. Guess why "Satan" is portrayed as dark skinned.|||If He'd have been obese, bald, and toothless. That may have affected His impact.|||Well...a hot chick will get me into bed with her (metaphorically OR literally) faster than an ugly one. Does that answer your question?|||I personally don't care how someone looks, if they can tell or show me a way to make my life easier, count me in.|||I won't listen to fat pastor preaching on taking care of your body.|||I certainly wouldn't be posing online as him, because I need someone equally sexy to masquerade as.|||As for Jesus, NO.|||To some people it does. You know we humans are sometimes hung up on appearances
Would he be allowed in, ushered to some secluded rear seat so as not to offend the membership, or would he guided up front and truly welcomed.
People prejudge; too fat, too thin, too tall, too short; all affecting how we perceive that persons intent behind their message, and what value we assess to them. GREAT QUESTION!|||Actually, he was probably a bearded worn man by the age of thirty instead of a handsome flesh-of-god person. The life expectancy for people then was substantially smaller than now. His words and viewpoints carried him.
But, you said "person's physical looks" but then you siphoned it down to Jesus. It's well known that a good countenance (charisma) will attract followers. Even when Charles Manson was found guilty, his followers believed in his message. He certainly didn't look all that handsome.|||I have heard complaints on Jesus' image in church. He is made to look Nordic in paintings; even Blue Eyes! He was Semitic; so he probably had black hair, dark eyes and skin, and a Big nose.
Yes--we are only Human. How someone looks does affect us. We can't help it; only God can blind us to someones looks.|||Well have you ever seen a serious religion with an ugly messiah?
Have you even seen an ugly deformed preacher? They're non-existent. Aesthetics and symbolism has a lot to do with religion.|||Is shouldn't do. I guess it is possible.|||According to scripture, He was not very handsome at all, and neither was Paul. On top of that, Paul probably had a speech impediment.
So, the answer would be, "no".|||He WAS unattractive. It has obviously effected our view of him, since, in most cases, he has been viewed as handsome.|||Street people that come up to me and tell me to accept Jesus and prepare for the end of the world are frightening. Mental illness always is.|||Yes, it does. For example, I would be less likely to trust the religious message put forth by an ungodly young woman wearing make-up and dressed like a slut.|||it shouldn't matter but it does. There have been several studies done on attractiveness and showing how others treat people who are better looking.|||Sure, do you think that middle class white Christians would worship a black "god"? It would never happen. Guess why "Satan" is portrayed as dark skinned.|||If He'd have been obese, bald, and toothless. That may have affected His impact.|||Well...a hot chick will get me into bed with her (metaphorically OR literally) faster than an ugly one. Does that answer your question?|||I personally don't care how someone looks, if they can tell or show me a way to make my life easier, count me in.|||I won't listen to fat pastor preaching on taking care of your body.|||I certainly wouldn't be posing online as him, because I need someone equally sexy to masquerade as.|||As for Jesus, NO.|||To some people it does. You know we humans are sometimes hung up on appearances
How can people claim with any sort of credibility that Obama is Christian?
He has not even been to church since the Sunday after or before inauguration(either one) which seems more of a PR move than bearing any semblance of commitment to Christianity.|||The proof is in the pudding... his bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia is proof he is a "closet Muslim!!" Saudi Arabia has some significance in the Islamic religion if I am not mistaken. So, it would make sense for a Muslim to bow like that to him. Obama wears his Christianity on his sleeve... and I don't say that b/c he hasn't been to Church while being in Washington DC. His beliefs are so counter to Christianity... I don't care what he says!!|||Jesus never went to church either. In fact, the early Christians never attended public churches, but for centuries worshiped within their homes....as do many Christians today.
EDIT: How is that a comparision of Obama to Jesus?? I said Jesus didn't attend services...He didn't. It's factual. He, instead, practiced what he believed in his own life....meaning NOT that Obama is 'Jesus like'...but that many millions of Christians do not attend official worship services...nor is there ANY requirement to do so.
Since his faith or non faith doesn't matter in any way to me...as it is HIS private and personal journey....even if he were a Muslim or agnostic, it wouldn't matter to me. You say those like they are curse words. Oooh...scary Muslim and agnostic. Big deal!! He says he is a Christian, I have no reason to judge him.|||I don't think his religion really matters. By the way, he isn't Muslim. That was a rumor and it is totally false. And even if he was, not all Muslims are terrorists.
But as I said, his religion shouldn't really matter. What is so wrong with not going to church? I think we should worry more about issues such as North Korea or Iran.|||Still trying to put religion into U.S. politics where it has no place. And look at you making judgment on what the man believes. Many Christians don't go to church. The Bible says the kingdom of God is within. It also says to judge not.
Organized religion is the corruption of God. And it appears they've done a number on you.|||Obama is not Christian. Jesus said if any man deny me,then will I deny him to my Father. Obama came out on Rick Warren's forum and denied Christ publicly. Obama said "I'm a Christian but I believe there are many paths to God."|||what you have against agnostics? you have a problem against people choosing to say they don't know where there is not enough evidence to lean either way?|||Sam Harris, the infamous atheist, said that Obama is a fake Christian.
Sam would know.|||It takes one to know one. You should be asking a Christian this question, not Y/A Answers. There aren't too many Christians on Y/A Answers Politics.|||I personally know tons of Christians who don't regularly attend church, and I bet you do too. ;)|||How can you claim politicians aren't all pure religious hypocrites?|||Very easily. Faith isn't about sitting in pews on Sunday|||none of anyones business really|||Simple, just like you and I he believes in God and that Christ died for out sins.|||there's no way in hell that guy is a Christian, its just not possible.|||To me, it's more the fact that he lies about it.|||"Oh great. Just great. One answer in and the Jesus comparisons to the Obamessiah already start to come in."
hahaha. I recognise the name, too. It's always the same people.|||TRUE! the way he bowed to that oil king whoever he was ! makes you think!
Oh great. Just great. One answer in and the Jesus comparisons to the Obamessiah already start to come in.LOLLLLLLLL!
EDIT: How is that a comparision of Obama to Jesus?? I said Jesus didn't attend services...He didn't. It's factual. He, instead, practiced what he believed in his own life....meaning NOT that Obama is 'Jesus like'...but that many millions of Christians do not attend official worship services...nor is there ANY requirement to do so.
Since his faith or non faith doesn't matter in any way to me...as it is HIS private and personal journey....even if he were a Muslim or agnostic, it wouldn't matter to me. You say those like they are curse words. Oooh...scary Muslim and agnostic. Big deal!! He says he is a Christian, I have no reason to judge him.|||I don't think his religion really matters. By the way, he isn't Muslim. That was a rumor and it is totally false. And even if he was, not all Muslims are terrorists.
But as I said, his religion shouldn't really matter. What is so wrong with not going to church? I think we should worry more about issues such as North Korea or Iran.|||Still trying to put religion into U.S. politics where it has no place. And look at you making judgment on what the man believes. Many Christians don't go to church. The Bible says the kingdom of God is within. It also says to judge not.
Organized religion is the corruption of God. And it appears they've done a number on you.|||Obama is not Christian. Jesus said if any man deny me,then will I deny him to my Father. Obama came out on Rick Warren's forum and denied Christ publicly. Obama said "I'm a Christian but I believe there are many paths to God."|||what you have against agnostics? you have a problem against people choosing to say they don't know where there is not enough evidence to lean either way?|||Sam Harris, the infamous atheist, said that Obama is a fake Christian.
Sam would know.|||It takes one to know one. You should be asking a Christian this question, not Y/A Answers. There aren't too many Christians on Y/A Answers Politics.|||I personally know tons of Christians who don't regularly attend church, and I bet you do too. ;)|||How can you claim politicians aren't all pure religious hypocrites?|||Very easily. Faith isn't about sitting in pews on Sunday|||none of anyones business really|||Simple, just like you and I he believes in God and that Christ died for out sins.|||there's no way in hell that guy is a Christian, its just not possible.|||To me, it's more the fact that he lies about it.|||"Oh great. Just great. One answer in and the Jesus comparisons to the Obamessiah already start to come in."
hahaha. I recognise the name, too. It's always the same people.|||TRUE! the way he bowed to that oil king whoever he was ! makes you think!
Oh great. Just great. One answer in and the Jesus comparisons to the Obamessiah already start to come in.LOLLLLLLLL!
What do you think about this site and credibility as a personal financial coach?
This site http://www.onlinemoneyology.com seems to be interesting and I want to sign up for personal finacial coaching. The author Ms. Connie David seems to know how to handle finances and what advices she can give to people with tight budget.
Can anyone give me ideas and suggestions? Also is the pricing for the site realistic?
Has anyone tried this site before? What can you say?|||It does not look very good to me. My suggestion is to stay away.
It would be better to borrow books on personal financial management and read them. Books by Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey and many others enjoy a good reputation and do not cost much.
But the most important factor in achieving financial success in your personal life is SELF DISCIPLINE to live below your means.|||Here's my opinion:
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
This is a ripoff.
Can anyone give me ideas and suggestions? Also is the pricing for the site realistic?
Has anyone tried this site before? What can you say?|||It does not look very good to me. My suggestion is to stay away.
It would be better to borrow books on personal financial management and read them. Books by Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey and many others enjoy a good reputation and do not cost much.
But the most important factor in achieving financial success in your personal life is SELF DISCIPLINE to live below your means.|||Here's my opinion:
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
This is a ripoff.
At what military rank is his/her letter of recommendation considered to have enough credibility?
Former E-5 here going for civ jobs that may require rec letters. I assume LORs from an O-4 or higher is convincing enough on the officer side, and E-7 or higher for the enlisted side?|||Your assumptions are OK, but there is nothing wrong with a letter of recommendation from someone with rank equal to yours or just above yours. The important thing is what the letter says. A sincere letter from a buddy who values your cooperation, loyalty, honesty, and integrity and can express these qualities well, or give specific examples of these characteristics, can go a long way, compared to a formal letter from an officer who hardly knows you and bases the letter on material gleaned from your personnel file.
Can you tell me about the reputation and credibility of the acting school called ACT out of Phoenix, Arizona?
My son went on an audition with approximately 1000 people. They told us 5% would get selected for the acting school but that we would have to be prepared to pay immediately and the costs were in the thousands.|||http://www.academyofcinemaandtv.com/inde鈥?/a>
i think this is the place...not sure. the thing is, are you planning on sending your child to college? or do you want them to sell their soul to hollywood before puberty? this school is offering commercial training to very young children. not just training but more importantly exposure. this doesn't guarentee anything but that your child will ask for more money down the road for more training. i am not a supporter of children being introduced to this kind of commercialism. you are taking away their childhood and selling it to casting directors. being in the entertainment business means walking a very fine line, and one that is very expensive. i would suggest doing your own research into the school not depending on the second hand info you're asking from strangers online (unless of course you're merely querying after you, yourself, have gathered sufficient info). it sounds to me like a glorified casting agency yet they're not really offering to find jobs for your money. they are offering training and exposure to agents who then will ask for more money. i don't know. as a parent you have to make a decision....
|||This certainly sounds like a scam. How were you made aware of the audition? No reputable acting school demands full payment in advance.
i think this is the place...not sure. the thing is, are you planning on sending your child to college? or do you want them to sell their soul to hollywood before puberty? this school is offering commercial training to very young children. not just training but more importantly exposure. this doesn't guarentee anything but that your child will ask for more money down the road for more training. i am not a supporter of children being introduced to this kind of commercialism. you are taking away their childhood and selling it to casting directors. being in the entertainment business means walking a very fine line, and one that is very expensive. i would suggest doing your own research into the school not depending on the second hand info you're asking from strangers online (unless of course you're merely querying after you, yourself, have gathered sufficient info). it sounds to me like a glorified casting agency yet they're not really offering to find jobs for your money. they are offering training and exposure to agents who then will ask for more money. i don't know. as a parent you have to make a decision....
|||This certainly sounds like a scam. How were you made aware of the audition? No reputable acting school demands full payment in advance.
How much credibility does a non college graduate have when he/she tells people to go to college and graduate?
Two Points
1) That person has credibility because if he/she knows the hardships one can experience without a college degree - then that is a real example of what can go wrong.
2) To the above commentator (I'm not defending his policies) - Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review, a post that generally means he was more than likely a summa *** laude graduate.|||Like Palin and W.???? LOLOL!!! You're a real bright one!
Check Gore's, Kerry's and (try to check) Obama's grades. Bush was above them. (Good luck with Obama's! LOL! He's got his in lock up.)
1) That person has credibility because if he/she knows the hardships one can experience without a college degree - then that is a real example of what can go wrong.
2) To the above commentator (I'm not defending his policies) - Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review, a post that generally means he was more than likely a summa *** laude graduate.|||Like Palin and W.???? LOLOL!!! You're a real bright one!
Check Gore's, Kerry's and (try to check) Obama's grades. Bush was above them. (Good luck with Obama's! LOL! He's got his in lock up.)
What is the credibility of the existence of white holes?
or more specifically: a reversal of a black hole
Just heard about this and it sound really interesting. would like hear from people who are more knowledgeable about this and get redirected to good sites about this theory|||White holes as the inverse to black holes WAS floated as a theory when quasars were first discovered, 30 years ago. There seemed no other way to explain the energy output. But now our theories are better and we understand that there is this MONSTER of a huge black hole in the heart of a quasar, so it all makes sense, plus the fact we have other evidence (photographic, Doppler, less active galaxies closer by as they age, etc).|||What the? You mean a point in space that you can't get to because of reverse gravity that pushes away everything at the speed of light?
Novel concept to me.|||sunh a phenominon realy does not exist.|||Below is a link from Wikipedia.
Nothing's crazy in the areas of science and space, there's still a lot we don't understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole|||While it is definitely withing General Relativity, I don't think we have actually "viewed" them in the sence we have black holes. Also, black holes and white holes are in no way connected, one thing going into a black hole does not come out of a white whole. They're two seperate entities.|||Well yes, they're real. They've even been proven and have pictures of them. Or, what I call a white hole. The quasar of the black hole spits out all the stuff it's taken in and throws it out as energy.|||If there are black holes there are also white holes
But opposites attract so there would be neither,they would annihilate each other.
Just heard about this and it sound really interesting. would like hear from people who are more knowledgeable about this and get redirected to good sites about this theory|||White holes as the inverse to black holes WAS floated as a theory when quasars were first discovered, 30 years ago. There seemed no other way to explain the energy output. But now our theories are better and we understand that there is this MONSTER of a huge black hole in the heart of a quasar, so it all makes sense, plus the fact we have other evidence (photographic, Doppler, less active galaxies closer by as they age, etc).|||What the? You mean a point in space that you can't get to because of reverse gravity that pushes away everything at the speed of light?
Novel concept to me.|||sunh a phenominon realy does not exist.|||Below is a link from Wikipedia.
Nothing's crazy in the areas of science and space, there's still a lot we don't understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole|||While it is definitely withing General Relativity, I don't think we have actually "viewed" them in the sence we have black holes. Also, black holes and white holes are in no way connected, one thing going into a black hole does not come out of a white whole. They're two seperate entities.|||Well yes, they're real. They've even been proven and have pictures of them. Or, what I call a white hole. The quasar of the black hole spits out all the stuff it's taken in and throws it out as energy.|||If there are black holes there are also white holes
But opposites attract so there would be neither,they would annihilate each other.
Atheists how come in your mind the Bible has no credibility?
If the Bible has no credibility than History books don't either!
|||The Bible is full of extraordinary claims of a supernatural nature that have no credible evidence to back them up.
Nothing in any history book I've ever read has defied any natural law, and those facts are supported by evidence.
If the Bible has credibility, then so does Spiderman.|||Consider Ezekiel 29-32. In this dated prophecy, which unlike most biblical prophecies was written before the event (it is pretty easy to get a prophecy right 50 years after the event). God predicts that Nebuchadnezzar will defeat Ahmose II, the Nile will reverse course and all Egyptian males will be driven from the land.
In fact, Ahmose II defeated Nebuchadnezzar and this failure made it difficult for him to remain in power for the rest of his reign. Indeed, the prophecy almost happened in reverse entirely. Now had Ezekiel predicted that Ahmose would win, then it would have been a good prophecy.
This is but one of many errors in the bible. The bible lacks credibility because it does not stand up against the independent record of neighboring civilizations nor of the archaeological record of the physical remains left behind that contradict the stories themselves.
It is true that the bible also contains accurate history, but that isn't the rule. Consider the New Testament, there are 400,000 variant passages in the ancient copies which means there are more variants than there are passages. Translators will tell you that there is no way to actually know which passages are true and which are changed and in some cases no original may have been maintained. The Old Testament is harder to judge because of the Hebrew practice of burning old books when they wear out, so there are even fewer copies of the Old Testament than the New.
If you have ever read the Apostolic Fathers, the people trained and ordained by the apostles themselves, you will find that quite often, when they quote scripture, it does not match our copies. This is problematic considering they were the first hearers of the New Testament. Indeed First Clement is older than almost the entire New Testament as is the Didache. When you consider tha Polycarp was one of the editors of John's Gospel, if his quotes don't match, then we have a serious version problem.
The bible has been allowed to become a mythical book rather than a set of ancient writings. This is a shame, because the real value of the books in teaching is when they are viewed spots and all, not as magical documents voiced by a god in the ears of writers.|||Well I'd agree if the history books you're referring to are written by David Irving, but most of the others are subject to rigorous scholarship and review.
Saying that history is always being revised as new evidence and data comes to light, and also in light of the modern zeitgeist. I'd love it if the same was true of the Bible, but I never seem to see a properly edited and reviewed copy with all the errors corrected.
Now here's a circular argument for you. If the bible is credible does that mean all the history books are as well? Does it include the ones that show that the bible isn't credible? You see the little problem you have?|||Is the one major probelm I have with the religoius--the require atheists to use the yardstick of science and logic when we make a case or an arguement, but refuse to apply the yardstick of logic and intellectual honesty to themselves. For example--they take the bible as this divine inspired word that could not come from anywhere else. Therefore earlier writings from other cultures should be about totally different things, right? Well now, the hebrews sprang from an area between egypt and sumeria (babylonian empire), out in the hinterlands between the two. One would suspect that some sumerian and egyptian culture woudl have rubbed off on this group, no? Google the sumerian creation story (creation of men out of the clay of the earth by the gods)-written a thousand years or so before the genesis story. Google the gilgamesh epic--the ark story written a thousand years before the noah story. Find the 10 commandments in the egyptian book of the dead--with the book of the dead being several millenia older than the biblical.
Google the king sargon myth from sumeria (infant placed in a basket sealed iwth pitch and placed in a river--to be found and raised by royalty)--sounds suspciously like MOSES doesn't it? All of these biblical stories can be found in writings much much older than the biblical stories. Doesn't make sense that the devine and inspired word would be the plagarized versions of older stories does it. Adding to this, there is little historical confiramtion for vast swaths of the bible--there is no confirmtion from the highly literate egyptian culture for example that the hebrews were ever in captivity, that there were massive plagues, that there was an exodous, no serious histroical verifcation that the hebrews were in the land of milk and honey until several millenia later. You have this book--based on earlier myths--that is unverifiable historically when you use the yardstick of science, logic, and intellectual honesty--in part this is why I find no credibility in this book as anything more than allegorical writings.|||Most history books still have problems of credibility, too. Stories were written and rewritten with errors and omissions. They were also all written by the winners. The losers in history rarely ever have any effect in our books today. Even when you are an athiest you can still have an appreciation for the stories in the bible. It simply comes down to believing or not believing in a creator/being.|||How come in your mind it does? The bible is a series of what's called "allegories." It's not meant to be taken literally.
Besides, history books have factual data to back them up, and the bible does not. You're expected to take on faith what the bible says without a shred of evidence.|||Heh
My history books don't claim that vegetation and the world existed prior to the sun and stars........
My Jefferson biography is full of likely scenarios, he never once is claimed to have turned water into wine, cast demons into pigs or floated into space like someone let go of a balloon.|||History books are backed up with archaeological evidence, matched up with the historical written record. history books also don't use verse to tell history, and make much more sense. history books also don't try to tell the future.
think a little more before you ask your next question. |||1. Science has blown gaping holes in Biblical myth.
2. There is no proof outside that the god of the Bible exists.
3. The Bible has inspired countless atrocities.
4. The Bible makes hundreds and hundreds of patently ludicrous claims.
5. Evil people use the Bible to justify their actions.
6. The Bible was written with a subversive and destructive political agenda.
And by the way, most history books weren't written for the express purpose of showering the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world with money.|||The tests of a history book are corroborating artifacts and texts from other sources. The events of the Bible have either no archaeological confirmation or only confirmation derived from the Bible itself. (e.g. An old well must have belonged to Isaac because the Bible says there was one in the general area.)
Historically, there is no Egyptian evidence of an exodus of slaves, no physical evidence of Israelite encampments in the Sinai desert, no evidence of the Amalekites, Edomites, or Moabites in the areas specified at the time they were said to have existed, or even any evidence of the "United Kingdom" from the Tenth Century BCE. There is no historical evidence for Jesus unless you count references to his followers. Several gospel writers clearly did not know the geography of Palestine. Without independent corroboration, the Bible can't be depended on as an historical source.|||You are right , History books are more or less colored by the opinion of the writers (or winners) , as in WWII history
As to the Bible , it was written some 2000 years ago when people were VERY superstitious and very much behind in knowledge of scientific facts.
I would be foolish to live my whole life by the writings of middle eastern savages of 2000 years ago.
|||seriously?? way to show your ignorance and bigorty there kid.History books have written documentation to back them up. What does the bible have besides myths and lies? There is a little credibility in the bible, but religious people put too much faith in the book simply because a few facts are correct.. Too much is wrong about it to be used as a history book|||Do you even know the history of the Bible?
If not, the links below might be beneficial to you then.
The basic problem I have in believing most of the Bible is simple. Most of the events and people cannot be verified by another source. Not even Christ.
Some of them can. Recent evidence shows that King David was probably real for instance.
So I do not dismiss the Bible in it's entirety. I see it as a collection of intermingled mythology and ancient history.|||Stop with your straw-man argument. It doesn't make any sense. And when you say that our history books have no credibility, you are obviously wrong. We can prove what happened with science and because there are people alive who actually experienced it. And while they will not always be proven they are more recent, and thus, havent been diluted by word of mouth over the 6000 years that the Earth has supposedly been around. Noone walked on water, not now, not 2000 years ago, not ever. If I'm lost at sea should I find a whale to live in for three days? Moses exhists only in the Bible. And so do Jewish slaves in Egypt. And so does the story of a trek of 40 [I've heard 60 from some] years in the desert and parting the Red Sea, walking on the floor of this sea without drowning in the mud that was probably 10 feet deep and crossing the 60 mile wide sea.
Jesus may have exhisted, but if he did. He most certainly was not born in December, the celebration of this probably comes from Yule, a pagan holiday celebrating the winter solestice. Have you ever wondered why we hide eggs on Easter? It's because this too is a pagan holiday celebrating the spring solestice. Spring is associated with new life. And rabbits and eggs are seen often in spring.
So in short, we believe it lacks credibility because it does.|||The bible has some credibility in a historical sense.
However, there is a big leap from believing that an influential Jew born in the first century preached love and compassion, and that donkey and snakes can talk.
|||Skippy, sit down, my friend. Now, are you ready for this? It might hurt a bit, but don't worry.
History books are based on things called facts drawn from evidence collected over time.
The Christian Bible was written by a bunch of men living in the Middle East over 2,000 years ago. They were so poor at keeping in touch that the four main gospels all contradict one another in some way. They are also terrible at relating facts. In this book, it is written that a man named Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead. That, my friend, Skippy, is not possible.
Add: And I'm familiar with "Lies My Teacher Told Me," and "A People's History of the United States." I don't just swallow history whole, but view it with a critical eye. The Bible, when viewed in this manner, just doesn't hold a drop of water.|||Many history books have actual pictures from events that happened, thus proving the events actually occurred, or they also have images of things from that time period, like ancient Mayan and Incan pyramids, for example.|||Spiderman comics have New York City in them, that does not mean Spiderman exists, nor does it mean New York City exists. History books are history books because they record facts in them. You can pick a lil book about the city and I guarantee it will have sources.|||History books do not contradict themselves. When they do, people do research in order to resolves inconsistencies. Unlike the Bible where any error, contradiction or inconsistency is ignored or denied with great passion.|||I never said it had no credibility - I simply do not believe it is the word of a god...
Harry Potter books are also credible - after all, they speak of historical landmarks in England. Does that mean that they are true? |||Your statement is illogical. History books have their facts checked out. The Bible has to be accepted on faith. Watch the recent Nova (on PBS) on the Bible, and see how many of their "facts" are disproved by evidence.|||History actually happened.
Before loadsa religious people start having a go...
Example: WW1 WW2?
Evidence YES... Books/artifacts/People
Religion.. evidence.... a book?|||I'm not an atheist but I think the Bible is primarily ethical rather than historical? So I'm not sure the same criteria apply; the history in the Bible was written according to different critical standards.|||history books have authors and editors and foot notes that are all credited
Do you know who wrote the bible? Nope
Do you know who, when or how many people edited it? NOPE
but somehow its still the word of god???????|||that is sooooooooooooooooooooo funny!
do you know that history books are based on real events, despite being biased towards the historians own views.
the bible is a mess.|||Well....you stole the words from me....The Bible was man written, so was History books, so why is it, we look down upon for believing the Bible...when people believe what happened durring the Civil War.|||You're right. All history is subjective. One has to look at the facts for oneself and conclude whether or not it's a believable or credible source. |||Not really, but nice try.
I have never read an analysis of the Norman invasion of 1066 in which a sky fairy knocked up Duke William's wife while he was galavanting about the Hastings area.|||Just because you put ideas and theories into a book doesn't mean it's credible. History books have sources. The Bible doesn't.
Fail of the epic nature!|||Stop wasting your time trying to start an argument about religion over the internet.
|||http://www.eternal-productions.org/101sc鈥?/a>
That website lists facts in the Bible that should deem it at least Scientifically credible. I don't understand how those things listed there are false.
Why did I get thumbs down? What possible reason is there? That's Scientific facts listed there that were in the Bible before Science listed them as facts. What's bad about that?
Seriously? Why the thumbs down? Please answer me? What possible reason is there? What?
|||The Bible is full of extraordinary claims of a supernatural nature that have no credible evidence to back them up.
Nothing in any history book I've ever read has defied any natural law, and those facts are supported by evidence.
If the Bible has credibility, then so does Spiderman.|||Consider Ezekiel 29-32. In this dated prophecy, which unlike most biblical prophecies was written before the event (it is pretty easy to get a prophecy right 50 years after the event). God predicts that Nebuchadnezzar will defeat Ahmose II, the Nile will reverse course and all Egyptian males will be driven from the land.
In fact, Ahmose II defeated Nebuchadnezzar and this failure made it difficult for him to remain in power for the rest of his reign. Indeed, the prophecy almost happened in reverse entirely. Now had Ezekiel predicted that Ahmose would win, then it would have been a good prophecy.
This is but one of many errors in the bible. The bible lacks credibility because it does not stand up against the independent record of neighboring civilizations nor of the archaeological record of the physical remains left behind that contradict the stories themselves.
It is true that the bible also contains accurate history, but that isn't the rule. Consider the New Testament, there are 400,000 variant passages in the ancient copies which means there are more variants than there are passages. Translators will tell you that there is no way to actually know which passages are true and which are changed and in some cases no original may have been maintained. The Old Testament is harder to judge because of the Hebrew practice of burning old books when they wear out, so there are even fewer copies of the Old Testament than the New.
If you have ever read the Apostolic Fathers, the people trained and ordained by the apostles themselves, you will find that quite often, when they quote scripture, it does not match our copies. This is problematic considering they were the first hearers of the New Testament. Indeed First Clement is older than almost the entire New Testament as is the Didache. When you consider tha Polycarp was one of the editors of John's Gospel, if his quotes don't match, then we have a serious version problem.
The bible has been allowed to become a mythical book rather than a set of ancient writings. This is a shame, because the real value of the books in teaching is when they are viewed spots and all, not as magical documents voiced by a god in the ears of writers.|||Well I'd agree if the history books you're referring to are written by David Irving, but most of the others are subject to rigorous scholarship and review.
Saying that history is always being revised as new evidence and data comes to light, and also in light of the modern zeitgeist. I'd love it if the same was true of the Bible, but I never seem to see a properly edited and reviewed copy with all the errors corrected.
Now here's a circular argument for you. If the bible is credible does that mean all the history books are as well? Does it include the ones that show that the bible isn't credible? You see the little problem you have?|||Is the one major probelm I have with the religoius--the require atheists to use the yardstick of science and logic when we make a case or an arguement, but refuse to apply the yardstick of logic and intellectual honesty to themselves. For example--they take the bible as this divine inspired word that could not come from anywhere else. Therefore earlier writings from other cultures should be about totally different things, right? Well now, the hebrews sprang from an area between egypt and sumeria (babylonian empire), out in the hinterlands between the two. One would suspect that some sumerian and egyptian culture woudl have rubbed off on this group, no? Google the sumerian creation story (creation of men out of the clay of the earth by the gods)-written a thousand years or so before the genesis story. Google the gilgamesh epic--the ark story written a thousand years before the noah story. Find the 10 commandments in the egyptian book of the dead--with the book of the dead being several millenia older than the biblical.
Google the king sargon myth from sumeria (infant placed in a basket sealed iwth pitch and placed in a river--to be found and raised by royalty)--sounds suspciously like MOSES doesn't it? All of these biblical stories can be found in writings much much older than the biblical stories. Doesn't make sense that the devine and inspired word would be the plagarized versions of older stories does it. Adding to this, there is little historical confiramtion for vast swaths of the bible--there is no confirmtion from the highly literate egyptian culture for example that the hebrews were ever in captivity, that there were massive plagues, that there was an exodous, no serious histroical verifcation that the hebrews were in the land of milk and honey until several millenia later. You have this book--based on earlier myths--that is unverifiable historically when you use the yardstick of science, logic, and intellectual honesty--in part this is why I find no credibility in this book as anything more than allegorical writings.|||Most history books still have problems of credibility, too. Stories were written and rewritten with errors and omissions. They were also all written by the winners. The losers in history rarely ever have any effect in our books today. Even when you are an athiest you can still have an appreciation for the stories in the bible. It simply comes down to believing or not believing in a creator/being.|||How come in your mind it does? The bible is a series of what's called "allegories." It's not meant to be taken literally.
Besides, history books have factual data to back them up, and the bible does not. You're expected to take on faith what the bible says without a shred of evidence.|||Heh
My history books don't claim that vegetation and the world existed prior to the sun and stars........
My Jefferson biography is full of likely scenarios, he never once is claimed to have turned water into wine, cast demons into pigs or floated into space like someone let go of a balloon.|||History books are backed up with archaeological evidence, matched up with the historical written record. history books also don't use verse to tell history, and make much more sense. history books also don't try to tell the future.
think a little more before you ask your next question. |||1. Science has blown gaping holes in Biblical myth.
2. There is no proof outside that the god of the Bible exists.
3. The Bible has inspired countless atrocities.
4. The Bible makes hundreds and hundreds of patently ludicrous claims.
5. Evil people use the Bible to justify their actions.
6. The Bible was written with a subversive and destructive political agenda.
And by the way, most history books weren't written for the express purpose of showering the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world with money.|||The tests of a history book are corroborating artifacts and texts from other sources. The events of the Bible have either no archaeological confirmation or only confirmation derived from the Bible itself. (e.g. An old well must have belonged to Isaac because the Bible says there was one in the general area.)
Historically, there is no Egyptian evidence of an exodus of slaves, no physical evidence of Israelite encampments in the Sinai desert, no evidence of the Amalekites, Edomites, or Moabites in the areas specified at the time they were said to have existed, or even any evidence of the "United Kingdom" from the Tenth Century BCE. There is no historical evidence for Jesus unless you count references to his followers. Several gospel writers clearly did not know the geography of Palestine. Without independent corroboration, the Bible can't be depended on as an historical source.|||You are right , History books are more or less colored by the opinion of the writers (or winners) , as in WWII history
As to the Bible , it was written some 2000 years ago when people were VERY superstitious and very much behind in knowledge of scientific facts.
I would be foolish to live my whole life by the writings of middle eastern savages of 2000 years ago.
|||seriously?? way to show your ignorance and bigorty there kid.History books have written documentation to back them up. What does the bible have besides myths and lies? There is a little credibility in the bible, but religious people put too much faith in the book simply because a few facts are correct.. Too much is wrong about it to be used as a history book|||Do you even know the history of the Bible?
If not, the links below might be beneficial to you then.
The basic problem I have in believing most of the Bible is simple. Most of the events and people cannot be verified by another source. Not even Christ.
Some of them can. Recent evidence shows that King David was probably real for instance.
So I do not dismiss the Bible in it's entirety. I see it as a collection of intermingled mythology and ancient history.|||Stop with your straw-man argument. It doesn't make any sense. And when you say that our history books have no credibility, you are obviously wrong. We can prove what happened with science and because there are people alive who actually experienced it. And while they will not always be proven they are more recent, and thus, havent been diluted by word of mouth over the 6000 years that the Earth has supposedly been around. Noone walked on water, not now, not 2000 years ago, not ever. If I'm lost at sea should I find a whale to live in for three days? Moses exhists only in the Bible. And so do Jewish slaves in Egypt. And so does the story of a trek of 40 [I've heard 60 from some] years in the desert and parting the Red Sea, walking on the floor of this sea without drowning in the mud that was probably 10 feet deep and crossing the 60 mile wide sea.
Jesus may have exhisted, but if he did. He most certainly was not born in December, the celebration of this probably comes from Yule, a pagan holiday celebrating the winter solestice. Have you ever wondered why we hide eggs on Easter? It's because this too is a pagan holiday celebrating the spring solestice. Spring is associated with new life. And rabbits and eggs are seen often in spring.
So in short, we believe it lacks credibility because it does.|||The bible has some credibility in a historical sense.
However, there is a big leap from believing that an influential Jew born in the first century preached love and compassion, and that donkey and snakes can talk.
|||Skippy, sit down, my friend. Now, are you ready for this? It might hurt a bit, but don't worry.
History books are based on things called facts drawn from evidence collected over time.
The Christian Bible was written by a bunch of men living in the Middle East over 2,000 years ago. They were so poor at keeping in touch that the four main gospels all contradict one another in some way. They are also terrible at relating facts. In this book, it is written that a man named Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead. That, my friend, Skippy, is not possible.
Add: And I'm familiar with "Lies My Teacher Told Me," and "A People's History of the United States." I don't just swallow history whole, but view it with a critical eye. The Bible, when viewed in this manner, just doesn't hold a drop of water.|||Many history books have actual pictures from events that happened, thus proving the events actually occurred, or they also have images of things from that time period, like ancient Mayan and Incan pyramids, for example.|||Spiderman comics have New York City in them, that does not mean Spiderman exists, nor does it mean New York City exists. History books are history books because they record facts in them. You can pick a lil book about the city and I guarantee it will have sources.|||History books do not contradict themselves. When they do, people do research in order to resolves inconsistencies. Unlike the Bible where any error, contradiction or inconsistency is ignored or denied with great passion.|||I never said it had no credibility - I simply do not believe it is the word of a god...
Harry Potter books are also credible - after all, they speak of historical landmarks in England. Does that mean that they are true? |||Your statement is illogical. History books have their facts checked out. The Bible has to be accepted on faith. Watch the recent Nova (on PBS) on the Bible, and see how many of their "facts" are disproved by evidence.|||History actually happened.
Before loadsa religious people start having a go...
Example: WW1 WW2?
Evidence YES... Books/artifacts/People
Religion.. evidence.... a book?|||I'm not an atheist but I think the Bible is primarily ethical rather than historical? So I'm not sure the same criteria apply; the history in the Bible was written according to different critical standards.|||history books have authors and editors and foot notes that are all credited
Do you know who wrote the bible? Nope
Do you know who, when or how many people edited it? NOPE
but somehow its still the word of god???????|||that is sooooooooooooooooooooo funny!
do you know that history books are based on real events, despite being biased towards the historians own views.
the bible is a mess.|||Well....you stole the words from me....The Bible was man written, so was History books, so why is it, we look down upon for believing the Bible...when people believe what happened durring the Civil War.|||You're right. All history is subjective. One has to look at the facts for oneself and conclude whether or not it's a believable or credible source. |||Not really, but nice try.
I have never read an analysis of the Norman invasion of 1066 in which a sky fairy knocked up Duke William's wife while he was galavanting about the Hastings area.|||Just because you put ideas and theories into a book doesn't mean it's credible. History books have sources. The Bible doesn't.
Fail of the epic nature!|||Stop wasting your time trying to start an argument about religion over the internet.
|||http://www.eternal-productions.org/101sc鈥?/a>
That website lists facts in the Bible that should deem it at least Scientifically credible. I don't understand how those things listed there are false.
Why did I get thumbs down? What possible reason is there? That's Scientific facts listed there that were in the Bible before Science listed them as facts. What's bad about that?
Seriously? Why the thumbs down? Please answer me? What possible reason is there? What?
Why are actors only given a platform and credibility in the media if they have a liberal agenda?
Conservative and/or Republican actors like Kelsey Grammer and Jon Voight aren't given the time of day.|||I don't know, but it would sure go a long way in raising respect for that industry. How in the sam hell can anyone respect that industry with idiots like Sean Penn who think anyone who talks ill of Hugo should go to jail, and idiot Danny Glover who thinks that Global warming caused the earth quake in Haiti. I mean....come on.....are they serious??|||Go Padres.Because the don't live the liberal lie.|||maybe if they could win an oscar... they would have their 5 mintues to talk about how horrible democrats are?|||They are on Fox News pretty often.
I thought it was the most watched cable news network. Are you saying that Fox News is neither a platform nor credible? Or are you just whining because the coolest people you can come up with are Kelsey Grammer and John Voight?|||It simply isn't true tha ONLY liberal actors are given platforms for their views.
Why do wing-nuts constantly lie?
Do you have any EVIDENCE that either of those actors are conservative?
In general, media gives attention to actors when: they have a new work coming out; when there's something newsworthy in their lives; when they're activists.
Thus, when Charleton Heston was head of the NRA, he got platforms for his views. Mel Gibson spews his hate-mongering in the media. I've seen other conservative actors discuss their views in the media.|||True. And why do we look to actors for advice on politics? They don't come to me for advice on acting.|||not true
why are conservatives (like yourself) so obsessed with Hollywood actors ??|||I've seen them make appearances on Fox News.
It should also be taken into consideration that those two actors have not had starring roles in major films for some time and therefore are less likely to be interviewed.|||Because the media has a liberal agenda and give liberal actors a forum to promote
liberal views.|||Birds of a feather.... and all that.|||I wish they would just shut up and act!
Why is someone who plays a lawyer on TV and never went to college an authority of political issues?
I thought it was the most watched cable news network. Are you saying that Fox News is neither a platform nor credible? Or are you just whining because the coolest people you can come up with are Kelsey Grammer and John Voight?|||It simply isn't true tha ONLY liberal actors are given platforms for their views.
Why do wing-nuts constantly lie?
Do you have any EVIDENCE that either of those actors are conservative?
In general, media gives attention to actors when: they have a new work coming out; when there's something newsworthy in their lives; when they're activists.
Thus, when Charleton Heston was head of the NRA, he got platforms for his views. Mel Gibson spews his hate-mongering in the media. I've seen other conservative actors discuss their views in the media.|||True. And why do we look to actors for advice on politics? They don't come to me for advice on acting.|||not true
why are conservatives (like yourself) so obsessed with Hollywood actors ??|||I've seen them make appearances on Fox News.
It should also be taken into consideration that those two actors have not had starring roles in major films for some time and therefore are less likely to be interviewed.|||Because the media has a liberal agenda and give liberal actors a forum to promote
liberal views.|||Birds of a feather.... and all that.|||I wish they would just shut up and act!
Why is someone who plays a lawyer on TV and never went to college an authority of political issues?
Do you think Democrats will ever have any credibility the way they play politics?
I mean trying to give amnesty by hook or crook to criminals or 'we must pass it to find out what's in the bill' or Charlie Rangel's criminal activity or Maxine Waters or all that transparency in the Obama admin......LOL. Come on, these people act like 2 year old spoiled babies trying to get their own way. Where's their scruples? Do they have any? What does it say about the people who elected these morally bankrupt, criminals?|||the Democrats lost all credibility a long time ago.
@justagrandma, It is really funny that you brought this up (Tom DeLay) at least he stood trial and is now going to pay for his mistakes, Rangel and Waters will never be prosecuted because of their political affiliation, Their Crimes were every bit as heinous as DeLay's yet people like Eric Holder will ensure that they never see the inside of a court room for their offenses.|||"What does it say about the people who elected these morally bankrupt, criminals?"
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
Petr Ne膷as, Prime Minister Czech Republic
I think that definitely has some truth to it. We have become a very complacent nation.|||The easiest thing to do is to point out one party's individual problems and totally ignore the failings of their own. But sensible people know better.
I could just as easily point out that DeLay is actually guilty and going to jail on his criminal charges. And that we know more about how Bush lied to get us into Iran, and about Vitters, Craig and Gingrichs and Gulianis' three wives and two mistresses than we ever needed to.
So what does it say about your side electing these morally bankrupt, convicted criminals?
Nothing, politicians have the same problems we all do, they aren't moral supermen and they don't advertise that fact.|||This answer from Eazy has my vote:
"What does it say about the people who elected these morally bankrupt, criminals?"
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
Petr Ne膷as, Prime Minister Czech Republic
I like this Petr guy. Totally fearless in speaking his mind and I guess this is the reason why Obama in his 13 vacations and numerous jetsetting trips around the world at our expense has not yet braced the Czech Republic with his presence! lol|||Lord I hope not. We need to watch both sides right now. Republicans and democrats. I will say
really funny to see them fighting amongst themselves now. Why are the going against Obama? Trying to get elected in two years. It won't work. We will be throwing out the libs and their leader in 2012. Now the republicans have to step up to the plate.
The people how elected them were fooled. Hopeful this has opened their eyes.|||No if you pay any attention, they are quite stupid. A few months back Nancy Pelosi said that 500 million americans lose their jobs every month. Last time I checked, there were only 300 mil. They think to the future, but we aren't really getting there. Just stick to fox news.|||no, but as a whole, the Republicans lack credibility also. Both major parties demonstrate over and over that they will put the party over the good of the nation|||Credibility doen't seem to be their goal. Having their way and the heck with the right or wrong. Rep are a close second in this profile.|||Get serious. The CONs have played politics and put Party over We The People. They're a friggin disgrace.|||Easyee88 has it right.
@justagrandma, It is really funny that you brought this up (Tom DeLay) at least he stood trial and is now going to pay for his mistakes, Rangel and Waters will never be prosecuted because of their political affiliation, Their Crimes were every bit as heinous as DeLay's yet people like Eric Holder will ensure that they never see the inside of a court room for their offenses.|||"What does it say about the people who elected these morally bankrupt, criminals?"
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
Petr Ne膷as, Prime Minister Czech Republic
I think that definitely has some truth to it. We have become a very complacent nation.|||The easiest thing to do is to point out one party's individual problems and totally ignore the failings of their own. But sensible people know better.
I could just as easily point out that DeLay is actually guilty and going to jail on his criminal charges. And that we know more about how Bush lied to get us into Iran, and about Vitters, Craig and Gingrichs and Gulianis' three wives and two mistresses than we ever needed to.
So what does it say about your side electing these morally bankrupt, convicted criminals?
Nothing, politicians have the same problems we all do, they aren't moral supermen and they don't advertise that fact.|||This answer from Eazy has my vote:
"What does it say about the people who elected these morally bankrupt, criminals?"
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
Petr Ne膷as, Prime Minister Czech Republic
I like this Petr guy. Totally fearless in speaking his mind and I guess this is the reason why Obama in his 13 vacations and numerous jetsetting trips around the world at our expense has not yet braced the Czech Republic with his presence! lol|||Lord I hope not. We need to watch both sides right now. Republicans and democrats. I will say
really funny to see them fighting amongst themselves now. Why are the going against Obama? Trying to get elected in two years. It won't work. We will be throwing out the libs and their leader in 2012. Now the republicans have to step up to the plate.
The people how elected them were fooled. Hopeful this has opened their eyes.|||No if you pay any attention, they are quite stupid. A few months back Nancy Pelosi said that 500 million americans lose their jobs every month. Last time I checked, there were only 300 mil. They think to the future, but we aren't really getting there. Just stick to fox news.|||no, but as a whole, the Republicans lack credibility also. Both major parties demonstrate over and over that they will put the party over the good of the nation|||Credibility doen't seem to be their goal. Having their way and the heck with the right or wrong. Rep are a close second in this profile.|||Get serious. The CONs have played politics and put Party over We The People. They're a friggin disgrace.|||Easyee88 has it right.
How much credibility do you put in early presidential polls?
Three years ago right now, Joe Lieberman was leading in Iowa. Then Howard Dean was polling ahead of the field, but John Kerry won the primary, got the nomination and lost the election. Here we are, 6 months out of the Iowa caucus, and an ARG poll puts Obama leading in SC, tied with Hillary in New Hampshire, and down significantly in Iowa. All the national polls generally indicate Hillary is leading the field, but with different margins.
www.americanresearchgroup.com|||I have as much faith in these polls as Hillary Clinton has of winning the nomination to be president of the United States.|||early polls are driven by the Media in an effort to "make news" where none exists and drive ratings
It is easier and cheaper to do than "real news"|||They portray an indication of what the nation feels now (despite the knockers they are scientific and do represent the nation). This in itself will drive change in the way candidates present and conduct themselves. Whatsmore there are very possibly leading candidates that have not officially entered the race at the point where polls are taken. Hence it is ridiculous to assume either of the following
1. Clinton is in front therefore she will win it
2. Bill Clinton was not in front and he won so therefore polls mean nothing.
What the polls do tell us is that Clinton is in front and the others have some catching up to do. It also tells us that certain candidates are beginning to slide (eg Obama, McCain) and that others are builidng support fast (Thompson).|||None, they are all a**holes and I don't vote or bother with them. Hiliary Clinton is and still always remains the President of the USA because no one can stop Hiliary because she knows what she's doing.
Much Love
Peace %26amp; Happiness|||NONE|||Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were not even blips on America's radar screen, yet both were elected President. Early polls have little meaning except to present a snapshot of public awareness of the various candidates, Political advisers use these numbers, broken down by region, to determine where to focus campaign resources. Other than that, these early polls are of no use to anyone.|||It seems like it's getting easier and easier to 'rig' big events.
www.americanresearchgroup.com|||I have as much faith in these polls as Hillary Clinton has of winning the nomination to be president of the United States.|||early polls are driven by the Media in an effort to "make news" where none exists and drive ratings
It is easier and cheaper to do than "real news"|||They portray an indication of what the nation feels now (despite the knockers they are scientific and do represent the nation). This in itself will drive change in the way candidates present and conduct themselves. Whatsmore there are very possibly leading candidates that have not officially entered the race at the point where polls are taken. Hence it is ridiculous to assume either of the following
1. Clinton is in front therefore she will win it
2. Bill Clinton was not in front and he won so therefore polls mean nothing.
What the polls do tell us is that Clinton is in front and the others have some catching up to do. It also tells us that certain candidates are beginning to slide (eg Obama, McCain) and that others are builidng support fast (Thompson).|||None, they are all a**holes and I don't vote or bother with them. Hiliary Clinton is and still always remains the President of the USA because no one can stop Hiliary because she knows what she's doing.
Much Love
Peace %26amp; Happiness|||NONE|||Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were not even blips on America's radar screen, yet both were elected President. Early polls have little meaning except to present a snapshot of public awareness of the various candidates, Political advisers use these numbers, broken down by region, to determine where to focus campaign resources. Other than that, these early polls are of no use to anyone.|||It seems like it's getting easier and easier to 'rig' big events.
Is Obama doing anything to bolster the credibility of his Vice President Joe Biden?
Or is he doing quite the opposite and making him look like a fool, to enhance his (Obama's) own power benefit?|||Is there anything that CAN be done to improve Joey B's credibility?
There are times when I wonder whose side JB is really on. He does tend to put a spotlight on BHO's weaknesses, which is JUST FINE with me.
I'd love to be the fly on the wall, knowing whether BHO thinks he made a mistake in his choice of VP.
And don't you think there's a pretty big disconnect between them? Other than going out together for burgers, it doesn't really seem like they work together.
GWB and Dick Cheney seemed on the same page all the time. They had different strengths but each used his own to advance the agenda.|||What has Joe done that is so damaging compared to these fools?
- Dan Quayle chronic G.H.W. Bush VP embarrassment
- Spiro Agnew VP for Nixon resigned "...Agnew resigned and then pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) to criminal charges of tax evasion and money laundering..."
Give us something to compare next time.|||neither one of them have any credibility. things are going to get worse. i look forward to 2010|||yea everytime he opens his mouth i think how much more credible biden must be|||They keep Biden locked in Cheney's bunker until The Presidency needs to distract us away from something, then they unleash Biden to play the clown. Works every time.|||Joe Biden doesn't need anyone to make him look like a fool. He can do just fine on his own.
There are times when I wonder whose side JB is really on. He does tend to put a spotlight on BHO's weaknesses, which is JUST FINE with me.
I'd love to be the fly on the wall, knowing whether BHO thinks he made a mistake in his choice of VP.
And don't you think there's a pretty big disconnect between them? Other than going out together for burgers, it doesn't really seem like they work together.
GWB and Dick Cheney seemed on the same page all the time. They had different strengths but each used his own to advance the agenda.|||What has Joe done that is so damaging compared to these fools?
- Dan Quayle chronic G.H.W. Bush VP embarrassment
- Spiro Agnew VP for Nixon resigned "...Agnew resigned and then pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) to criminal charges of tax evasion and money laundering..."
Give us something to compare next time.|||neither one of them have any credibility. things are going to get worse. i look forward to 2010|||yea everytime he opens his mouth i think how much more credible biden must be|||They keep Biden locked in Cheney's bunker until The Presidency needs to distract us away from something, then they unleash Biden to play the clown. Works every time.|||Joe Biden doesn't need anyone to make him look like a fool. He can do just fine on his own.
Has the medical credibility of Dianetics increased over the past 50 years?
My understanding is that Hubbard claimed scientific evidence to support Dianetics back in the 50s, which the medical community did not recognize.
Is that still the case? Are more and more doctors recognizing the value behind dianetics, or are they still skeptical 50 years later?|||Anyone can claim "scientific evidence", especially a science fiction author. You see, authors use many sources to put together a piece of work, much like one researches for writing a term paper. So, the information the author chooses, is only going to be that which would support that person's claim, and make it appear as if they are correct. There was and never has been medical credibility as far as this issue goes. There are many other groups very similar in mindset that also have "evidence", it's all a bunch of hot air. Science fiction writers are not scientists, doctors, chemists or researchers.|||I'm reading Dianetics right now. From the book: Dianetics has nothing to do with the science of Medicine or Psychology which are inexact and rely on treatments which cause more insult to the mind/body. It's a totally different way of reconnection. Anyone can do it.
|||It's utter rubbish! It has no credibility whatsoever!|||Definitely not.
What was hogwash then is still hogwash today.|||There is no medical credibility behind Dianetics. Your understanding is incorrect. medical doctors do not consider dianetics any more then they do voodoo.
Its not science, its a business used to make money.|||Medical practitioner cannot recognise the value behind dianetics .They are always going to be skeptical about anything else unless there are evidence for its place .
Just like acupuncture , homoeopathy and many others unconventional branch of medicine , they weren't acceptable to start with , but they are now . Will Dianetics prove its case ? Only time will tell .......
Is that still the case? Are more and more doctors recognizing the value behind dianetics, or are they still skeptical 50 years later?|||Anyone can claim "scientific evidence", especially a science fiction author. You see, authors use many sources to put together a piece of work, much like one researches for writing a term paper. So, the information the author chooses, is only going to be that which would support that person's claim, and make it appear as if they are correct. There was and never has been medical credibility as far as this issue goes. There are many other groups very similar in mindset that also have "evidence", it's all a bunch of hot air. Science fiction writers are not scientists, doctors, chemists or researchers.|||I'm reading Dianetics right now. From the book: Dianetics has nothing to do with the science of Medicine or Psychology which are inexact and rely on treatments which cause more insult to the mind/body. It's a totally different way of reconnection. Anyone can do it.
Report Abuse
|||It's utter rubbish! It has no credibility whatsoever!|||Definitely not.
What was hogwash then is still hogwash today.|||There is no medical credibility behind Dianetics. Your understanding is incorrect. medical doctors do not consider dianetics any more then they do voodoo.
Its not science, its a business used to make money.|||Medical practitioner cannot recognise the value behind dianetics .They are always going to be skeptical about anything else unless there are evidence for its place .
Just like acupuncture , homoeopathy and many others unconventional branch of medicine , they weren't acceptable to start with , but they are now . Will Dianetics prove its case ? Only time will tell .......
Is having numerous Hell In a Cell matches in one night ruining the credibility of HIAC?
HIAC used to mean something and it came around only once or twice a year. Now more then one in one night?! Same thing with TLC, I feel there ruining the matches for some cheap ratings.
BQ: Did anyone catch Lawlers blunder on raw? He said DX never competed in a HIAC match, yet they fought mchmahons.|||Yes. Hell In A Cell matches are very rare, and that's one of the things that makes them both special and exciting to watch. They don't come around very often, and when they do come around, they usually don't disappoint. The thing with HIAC Matches is that they only come around once or twice a year because they are one of the most exciting matches in the WWE and they can't be overused. Having too many HIAC matches in one night will take away the quality of the matches because each match has to be made unique and different or else the audience will not be impressed by all of the matches. When there is only one HIAC match scheduled, people look forward to it more, but now since there are several HIAC matches scheduled for the same night, the credibility of the match will be ruined.
BQ: lol. I did catch that. You'd think Lawler would know since HBK and HHH were just talking about it right before the match. It's kind of funny when the commentators botch though...:)|||i like it being suprises like when vickie put edge in a hell in a cell match against the undertaker at summerslam...CLASSIC!|||I know there only doing it for more money and matches.The WWE is going to fall at he rate there doing things from doing this to making it PG to changing PPV names.
I mean we've seen some of the greatest matches ever in HIAC and now ther just being used like a regular match now.They used to end big fueds and had great matches.Like Edge vs Undertaker.It's usually 1 HIAC a year there ruining a tradition for rating and little kids that are ruining WWE.Come on TLC was great for tag teams to like the Hadys and Edge %26amp; Christian now there being used willy nilly(Just made that up) Same with TNA but at least they have some memorial ones.
BQ:Yeah,They beat mcmahons and big show in a HIAC so what was that about Lawler.|||Yes it's just like having frequent title changes it devalues the meaning of them.
BQ: Yeah and what made even more funnier is that DX talked about beating the McMahon's in a Hell In A Cell not too long before Lawler goofed up.|||Actually there really shouldn't be so much use of the match in one night but the matches are looking awesome especially DX vs Legacy
BQ: Yeah i did notice him saying it i was surprised|||Cheap ratings is what the WWE are all about. Credible wrestlers are often put aside, so that the meatbags can flex their muscles, and get reactions from the crowd.|||I don't think so.. It is how they book these matches will matter, to determine whether or not the credibility of HIAC is ruined. Still HIAC means something. Orton-Cena rivalry will end with it, as Cena said there will be no more rematches if Orton loses. Same with DX-Legacy rivalry. Triple H said this thing(rivalry) will end at Hell in a Cell.
I feel that these kind of PPVs are a chance for the Main Eventers to perform in speciality matches, and for the fans to enjoy it.
BQ: I didn't notice, but I saw few questions here pointing that out. Blunder indeed.|||I agree completely! Hell in a Cell would be brought it when 2 superstars' rivalry is so intense it cant be put anywhere else. For example Edge and Undertaker wrestled each other for almost all of 2008 and their feud culminated in Hell in a Cell at SummerSlam. Hell in a Cell ends all feuds. They are ruining the concept of the match and they are doing it for like you said, Cheap ratings.
BQ: I went to Monday Night Football last night and I am watching a recording of RAW at the moment although after watching Cedric's entrance at the beginning of RAW it tempted me to turn it off.|||Yes, very much so
BQ they also faced Spirit Squad|||Yes because I think a hell in a cell match should remain like a special attraction and only have great memorable moments happening in them, I remember the first few hell in a cell matches they had a few years ago with HBK/Undertaker, Foley/Undertaker and Foley/HHH etc and I remember them being so good and looking forward to seeing the next one and seeing what memorable thing was going to happen in it. But they have happened so much now that I don't think people can get as excited especially when they see every match taking place in one|||yes u r right that this pppv is going 2 ruin the credibility of haic match
but mayb wwe wants 2 make haic stationed
meaning, they have stationed the elimination chamber at no way out %26amp; i thought that it is a bad idea, but it worked
%26amp; they might b thinking that fans r always eager 2 see some high rated rivalry come 2 an end in a haic match
so they have stationed it, that every year there should b 1 such event where we get 2 see the satan's structure
mayb every year they will generate such high end rivalries which need a haic demand
or mayb after this year we wont see any such ppv again %26amp; haic will get its original rareness back
then we have haic which is also a fear causing event when 2 guys r said 2 b competing in it, so mayb they have some other idea
like they will create another such match....mayb with a name "death in dungeon" or ....um...m...."solid storming"
actually i think that they should have made "punjabi prison match" stationed, that is not as deadly as haic but would b fine|||You see this is why PG Era is ruining the WWE.
They think having 3 or more hell in a cell matches will entertain kids:
The Hell In a cell concept was a bone chilling thrilling experience for superstars even if they fought the Undertaker (King of the cell)
Hell In a cell was a once a lifetime match now they are ruining it by having this PPV. Why they got rid of the No Mercy PPV I have no idea.
Main point is that PG Era had to do something with this no doubt.|||Yes,it is ruining the fantastic legacy of Hell In a Cell.
The Hell In a Cell is one of the most exciting matches in WWE, high risk, fast paced, bloody action where we always see two wrestlers pushed to their limits, The Hell In a Cell match is phenomenal, but having a whole PPV of Hell In a Cell matches is not what it's about. Hell In a Cell is only supposed to be held on very special occasions, usually to end feuds or hype them up. But having a whole PPv dedicated to HIAC obviously won't work out, we only want to see HIAC on special occasions and about once or twice per year, not 3 or 4 times a year, that is just too much, In My Opinion, there should never be a whole PPV set on one stipulation type match, It just ruins the legacy every time.
Lets take a look at some of these fantastic HIAc matches over the years.....
-Shawn Michaels Vs. Undertaker - 1997
-Undertaker %26amp; Steve Austin Vs. Kane and Mankind - 1998
-Undertaker Vs. Mankind- 1998
-Kane Vs. Mankind - 1998
-Undertaker Vs. Big Boss Man - 1999
-Triple H Vs. Cactus Jack - 2000
- Kurt Angle Vs. Undertaker Vs. Triple H Vs. Rikishi Vs. The Rock Vs. Steve Austin- 2000
-Triple H Vs. Chris Jericho - 2002
- Undertaker Vs. Brock Lesnar - 2002
-Triple H Vs. Kevin Nash- 2003
-Triple H Vs. Shawn Michaels - 2004
-Triple H Vs. Batista - 2005
-Undertaker Vs. Randy Orton - 2005
- DX Vs. The McMahons and Big Show - 2006
-Batista Vs. Undertaker -2007
-Undertaker Vs. Edge - 2008
As you can see,there is usually only one or two a year, now that we're getting 3 or 4, I'm not sure if it's really going to work out for WWE or the fans.|||Idk as yet it really depend on how the matches goes,
BQ: HHH said he's only been in 5 Cell matches, when he has been in 6....Hbk said hhh has been in more cell matches when the Undertaker has been in 9 cell matches...Lawler is begging for a heel turn, I mean really did Lawler and Jr. call that match with Big Show and The McMahon's???? woow idk they whole segment needed help|||stop crying u cry baby|||Yup, I don't know what's goin on with Vince and his writers but it seems that all they want is to change the story and sell new merchandise but in return, fans will lose interest of watching.
All I'm thinking is WWE wants to get more talents and early experience rather than focusing on few wrestlers. I hate this new PPV idea and that is why I'll stop watching for awhile.
I've heard a lot of errors before and I'm not surprised because commentators intentionally say that to get more paying customers and make the new fans believe that it never happened before.
BQ: Did anyone catch Lawlers blunder on raw? He said DX never competed in a HIAC match, yet they fought mchmahons.|||Yes. Hell In A Cell matches are very rare, and that's one of the things that makes them both special and exciting to watch. They don't come around very often, and when they do come around, they usually don't disappoint. The thing with HIAC Matches is that they only come around once or twice a year because they are one of the most exciting matches in the WWE and they can't be overused. Having too many HIAC matches in one night will take away the quality of the matches because each match has to be made unique and different or else the audience will not be impressed by all of the matches. When there is only one HIAC match scheduled, people look forward to it more, but now since there are several HIAC matches scheduled for the same night, the credibility of the match will be ruined.
BQ: lol. I did catch that. You'd think Lawler would know since HBK and HHH were just talking about it right before the match. It's kind of funny when the commentators botch though...:)|||i like it being suprises like when vickie put edge in a hell in a cell match against the undertaker at summerslam...CLASSIC!|||I know there only doing it for more money and matches.The WWE is going to fall at he rate there doing things from doing this to making it PG to changing PPV names.
I mean we've seen some of the greatest matches ever in HIAC and now ther just being used like a regular match now.They used to end big fueds and had great matches.Like Edge vs Undertaker.It's usually 1 HIAC a year there ruining a tradition for rating and little kids that are ruining WWE.Come on TLC was great for tag teams to like the Hadys and Edge %26amp; Christian now there being used willy nilly(Just made that up) Same with TNA but at least they have some memorial ones.
BQ:Yeah,They beat mcmahons and big show in a HIAC so what was that about Lawler.|||Yes it's just like having frequent title changes it devalues the meaning of them.
BQ: Yeah and what made even more funnier is that DX talked about beating the McMahon's in a Hell In A Cell not too long before Lawler goofed up.|||Actually there really shouldn't be so much use of the match in one night but the matches are looking awesome especially DX vs Legacy
BQ: Yeah i did notice him saying it i was surprised|||Cheap ratings is what the WWE are all about. Credible wrestlers are often put aside, so that the meatbags can flex their muscles, and get reactions from the crowd.|||I don't think so.. It is how they book these matches will matter, to determine whether or not the credibility of HIAC is ruined. Still HIAC means something. Orton-Cena rivalry will end with it, as Cena said there will be no more rematches if Orton loses. Same with DX-Legacy rivalry. Triple H said this thing(rivalry) will end at Hell in a Cell.
I feel that these kind of PPVs are a chance for the Main Eventers to perform in speciality matches, and for the fans to enjoy it.
BQ: I didn't notice, but I saw few questions here pointing that out. Blunder indeed.|||I agree completely! Hell in a Cell would be brought it when 2 superstars' rivalry is so intense it cant be put anywhere else. For example Edge and Undertaker wrestled each other for almost all of 2008 and their feud culminated in Hell in a Cell at SummerSlam. Hell in a Cell ends all feuds. They are ruining the concept of the match and they are doing it for like you said, Cheap ratings.
BQ: I went to Monday Night Football last night and I am watching a recording of RAW at the moment although after watching Cedric's entrance at the beginning of RAW it tempted me to turn it off.|||Yes, very much so
BQ they also faced Spirit Squad|||Yes because I think a hell in a cell match should remain like a special attraction and only have great memorable moments happening in them, I remember the first few hell in a cell matches they had a few years ago with HBK/Undertaker, Foley/Undertaker and Foley/HHH etc and I remember them being so good and looking forward to seeing the next one and seeing what memorable thing was going to happen in it. But they have happened so much now that I don't think people can get as excited especially when they see every match taking place in one|||yes u r right that this pppv is going 2 ruin the credibility of haic match
but mayb wwe wants 2 make haic stationed
meaning, they have stationed the elimination chamber at no way out %26amp; i thought that it is a bad idea, but it worked
%26amp; they might b thinking that fans r always eager 2 see some high rated rivalry come 2 an end in a haic match
so they have stationed it, that every year there should b 1 such event where we get 2 see the satan's structure
mayb every year they will generate such high end rivalries which need a haic demand
or mayb after this year we wont see any such ppv again %26amp; haic will get its original rareness back
then we have haic which is also a fear causing event when 2 guys r said 2 b competing in it, so mayb they have some other idea
like they will create another such match....mayb with a name "death in dungeon" or ....um...m...."solid storming"
actually i think that they should have made "punjabi prison match" stationed, that is not as deadly as haic but would b fine|||You see this is why PG Era is ruining the WWE.
They think having 3 or more hell in a cell matches will entertain kids:
The Hell In a cell concept was a bone chilling thrilling experience for superstars even if they fought the Undertaker (King of the cell)
Hell In a cell was a once a lifetime match now they are ruining it by having this PPV. Why they got rid of the No Mercy PPV I have no idea.
Main point is that PG Era had to do something with this no doubt.|||Yes,it is ruining the fantastic legacy of Hell In a Cell.
The Hell In a Cell is one of the most exciting matches in WWE, high risk, fast paced, bloody action where we always see two wrestlers pushed to their limits, The Hell In a Cell match is phenomenal, but having a whole PPV of Hell In a Cell matches is not what it's about. Hell In a Cell is only supposed to be held on very special occasions, usually to end feuds or hype them up. But having a whole PPv dedicated to HIAC obviously won't work out, we only want to see HIAC on special occasions and about once or twice per year, not 3 or 4 times a year, that is just too much, In My Opinion, there should never be a whole PPV set on one stipulation type match, It just ruins the legacy every time.
Lets take a look at some of these fantastic HIAc matches over the years.....
-Shawn Michaels Vs. Undertaker - 1997
-Undertaker %26amp; Steve Austin Vs. Kane and Mankind - 1998
-Undertaker Vs. Mankind- 1998
-Kane Vs. Mankind - 1998
-Undertaker Vs. Big Boss Man - 1999
-Triple H Vs. Cactus Jack - 2000
- Kurt Angle Vs. Undertaker Vs. Triple H Vs. Rikishi Vs. The Rock Vs. Steve Austin- 2000
-Triple H Vs. Chris Jericho - 2002
- Undertaker Vs. Brock Lesnar - 2002
-Triple H Vs. Kevin Nash- 2003
-Triple H Vs. Shawn Michaels - 2004
-Triple H Vs. Batista - 2005
-Undertaker Vs. Randy Orton - 2005
- DX Vs. The McMahons and Big Show - 2006
-Batista Vs. Undertaker -2007
-Undertaker Vs. Edge - 2008
As you can see,there is usually only one or two a year, now that we're getting 3 or 4, I'm not sure if it's really going to work out for WWE or the fans.|||Idk as yet it really depend on how the matches goes,
BQ: HHH said he's only been in 5 Cell matches, when he has been in 6....Hbk said hhh has been in more cell matches when the Undertaker has been in 9 cell matches...Lawler is begging for a heel turn, I mean really did Lawler and Jr. call that match with Big Show and The McMahon's???? woow idk they whole segment needed help|||stop crying u cry baby|||Yup, I don't know what's goin on with Vince and his writers but it seems that all they want is to change the story and sell new merchandise but in return, fans will lose interest of watching.
All I'm thinking is WWE wants to get more talents and early experience rather than focusing on few wrestlers. I hate this new PPV idea and that is why I'll stop watching for awhile.
I've heard a lot of errors before and I'm not surprised because commentators intentionally say that to get more paying customers and make the new fans believe that it never happened before.
Why does God leave us human after conversion when that ruins our credibility with unbelievers ?
Unbelievers all the time say they will not listen to humans for evidence, but only to God himself or angels.|||This is a very good question.
I firmly believe it is because people are not to look to other people but to God alone ultimately.
No one can ride another person's coat tails into heaven.
I do not agree that it ruins our credibility however. What I do think it does is it more often than not exposes the real intentions of the person that refuses to believe in and trust God.
The truth remains - God has spoken and man will not listen.|||Thanks!
|||Atheists will use any excuse to avoid believing in God.|||NEVER have I heard an unbeliever say this.
We are human, CASE CLOSED.
We are not perfect. I would think people would be more afraid of us if we were perfect.|||I am confused ay your question.
God does not leave us - yes remain human but that is because we are human actually a very high honor as God created man in his own image.
If you have come to believe in the Lord God Almighty creator of the universe why do you need credibility from mortals?|||Research the origin of the bible. you will find the text was stolen from previous civilizations.
Not an atheist....the bible is just a book.|||in the natural we are human like them however in the spirit we are spirit!|||Because thats how he created us|||Jesus walked as a man. His credibility was only compromised when a person let religion make what he believed to be true. But those who let God's word, the Abrahamic covenant ,guide them, they accepted Jesus and His healing power with open arms.
It is no different today, and never will be any different.Accept God's word or reject it, that is what it always comes down to.|||God does not leave us . You were an unbeliever once weren't you ?
I firmly believe it is because people are not to look to other people but to God alone ultimately.
No one can ride another person's coat tails into heaven.
I do not agree that it ruins our credibility however. What I do think it does is it more often than not exposes the real intentions of the person that refuses to believe in and trust God.
The truth remains - God has spoken and man will not listen.|||Thanks!
Report Abuse
|||Atheists will use any excuse to avoid believing in God.|||NEVER have I heard an unbeliever say this.
We are human, CASE CLOSED.
We are not perfect. I would think people would be more afraid of us if we were perfect.|||I am confused ay your question.
God does not leave us - yes remain human but that is because we are human actually a very high honor as God created man in his own image.
If you have come to believe in the Lord God Almighty creator of the universe why do you need credibility from mortals?|||Research the origin of the bible. you will find the text was stolen from previous civilizations.
Not an atheist....the bible is just a book.|||in the natural we are human like them however in the spirit we are spirit!|||Because thats how he created us|||Jesus walked as a man. His credibility was only compromised when a person let religion make what he believed to be true. But those who let God's word, the Abrahamic covenant ,guide them, they accepted Jesus and His healing power with open arms.
It is no different today, and never will be any different.Accept God's word or reject it, that is what it always comes down to.|||God does not leave us . You were an unbeliever once weren't you ?
How much credibility does Karl Rove have now as a political strategist?
I know that shortly before he died, the late Lee Atwater was extremely remorseful about the political tactics he employed.
Karl Rove became his heir apparent and continued the tradition of wedge issue politics and smear tactics.
In light of today's changing political landscape, aren't Karl Rove's political strategies and tactics virtually obsolete or almost devoid of their former effectiveness?|||Karl Rove is a bad, bad man, but as far as credibility for being a political strategist... well, he was an integral part of the Bush Doctrine. He weaseled his way into the GOP starting in the 80's and even if he's of low moral character, he sure did make an impact.
So, as far as credibility for knowing the ins and outs of the GOP? Oh, yeah, he's solid gold. He epitomizes the GOP in the first part of the 21st century.
As far as credibility as a decent human being? Not so much.|||Rove is a criminal. Don't give him any more stature.
Bush was lying with a den of thieves and didn't really know what was happening.
Try not to answer your own questions. Use the phrase, do you agree, instead.
Monitor the death threats and report them with the name of the Avatar.|||Poor Karl is going to have to try and invent himself as the Pillsbury Dough Boy. |||Alas, I don't think so. After all, McCain got an instant boost in the polls when he hired some Rove people and went negative.
The problem is, many people are credulous. Just look at the McCain supporters here -- they'll believe any claim, no matter how silly. Claim Obama is a socialist, they'll believe you. Claim he's a Muslim, they'll believe you.|||Well I can only hope that this election taught him something. You can win without dragging everyone through the mud. McCain's campaign was one of the sleaziest I can remember. I'm so glad that Americans didn't respond to it this time. |||Vague terms like "changing political landscape" don't provide any context for your question. If you mean the sheer fact that Obama won, then I don't see your point, because Rove had nothing to do with the McCain campaign. He has been out of politics since 2005. So you're not really making any sense.
And Joshua, I'm sorry, but your not coming across as being much more intelligent. Here, you rail against "McCain supporters," whom you classify as bigoted, yet in another question, you openly admit to attacking Sarah Palin. Try doing some research and come back with a better knowledge base, and then answer some questions. Thank you.|||Keep believing that the political landscape is changing...
But the truth is that it is the same as ever, Obama was simply more subtle in his attacks than McCain. Obama gave as good as he got, and then some.
Obama is more like Karl Rove than I would like. I supported Obama, and continue to do so; but I also know that Obama knows how to play this game, just like Rove does.|||Those whose candidates lost two elections to Rove simply can't find the honesty to give the man his due. He is good at what he does. It might be wise to give the man his due, he could very well be instrumental in bringing more people to power. As for Lee Atwater, his conscience is his business. It's normal for people to look back on life and regret what we've done. |||No, I think you fail to understand that people voted with their pocketbook, and unfortuantely for them, they thought Obama would be a better choice. |||Ever since Karl Rove left, the Republican party has lost Congress and the White House. Coincidence?|||None. I have always thought he was behind Palin's inciting the crowd into screaming about "killing the terrorist". That kind of garbage lost them the election. I hope Mr. Rove fades away, we don't need that kind of schoolboy tactics.|||No. He brought McCain to within a few percentage points of Obama in an election that Obama should've walked away with considering the mood about the current president.
Wedge issue politics and smear tactics? Obama did as much of that as the republicans did. Obama used fear (McCain is going to take away your social security and medicare), lies (the ads showing McCain and quoting a Limbaugh parody about immigration) and divisive class envy in his ads.
There is dirt on everyone's hands, Obama included.
Karl Rove became his heir apparent and continued the tradition of wedge issue politics and smear tactics.
In light of today's changing political landscape, aren't Karl Rove's political strategies and tactics virtually obsolete or almost devoid of their former effectiveness?|||Karl Rove is a bad, bad man, but as far as credibility for being a political strategist... well, he was an integral part of the Bush Doctrine. He weaseled his way into the GOP starting in the 80's and even if he's of low moral character, he sure did make an impact.
So, as far as credibility for knowing the ins and outs of the GOP? Oh, yeah, he's solid gold. He epitomizes the GOP in the first part of the 21st century.
As far as credibility as a decent human being? Not so much.|||Rove is a criminal. Don't give him any more stature.
Bush was lying with a den of thieves and didn't really know what was happening.
Try not to answer your own questions. Use the phrase, do you agree, instead.
Monitor the death threats and report them with the name of the Avatar.|||Poor Karl is going to have to try and invent himself as the Pillsbury Dough Boy. |||Alas, I don't think so. After all, McCain got an instant boost in the polls when he hired some Rove people and went negative.
The problem is, many people are credulous. Just look at the McCain supporters here -- they'll believe any claim, no matter how silly. Claim Obama is a socialist, they'll believe you. Claim he's a Muslim, they'll believe you.|||Well I can only hope that this election taught him something. You can win without dragging everyone through the mud. McCain's campaign was one of the sleaziest I can remember. I'm so glad that Americans didn't respond to it this time. |||Vague terms like "changing political landscape" don't provide any context for your question. If you mean the sheer fact that Obama won, then I don't see your point, because Rove had nothing to do with the McCain campaign. He has been out of politics since 2005. So you're not really making any sense.
And Joshua, I'm sorry, but your not coming across as being much more intelligent. Here, you rail against "McCain supporters," whom you classify as bigoted, yet in another question, you openly admit to attacking Sarah Palin. Try doing some research and come back with a better knowledge base, and then answer some questions. Thank you.|||Keep believing that the political landscape is changing...
But the truth is that it is the same as ever, Obama was simply more subtle in his attacks than McCain. Obama gave as good as he got, and then some.
Obama is more like Karl Rove than I would like. I supported Obama, and continue to do so; but I also know that Obama knows how to play this game, just like Rove does.|||Those whose candidates lost two elections to Rove simply can't find the honesty to give the man his due. He is good at what he does. It might be wise to give the man his due, he could very well be instrumental in bringing more people to power. As for Lee Atwater, his conscience is his business. It's normal for people to look back on life and regret what we've done. |||No, I think you fail to understand that people voted with their pocketbook, and unfortuantely for them, they thought Obama would be a better choice. |||Ever since Karl Rove left, the Republican party has lost Congress and the White House. Coincidence?|||None. I have always thought he was behind Palin's inciting the crowd into screaming about "killing the terrorist". That kind of garbage lost them the election. I hope Mr. Rove fades away, we don't need that kind of schoolboy tactics.|||No. He brought McCain to within a few percentage points of Obama in an election that Obama should've walked away with considering the mood about the current president.
Wedge issue politics and smear tactics? Obama did as much of that as the republicans did. Obama used fear (McCain is going to take away your social security and medicare), lies (the ads showing McCain and quoting a Limbaugh parody about immigration) and divisive class envy in his ads.
There is dirt on everyone's hands, Obama included.
Do you believe it would lend more credibility to politicians if they answered questions on a polygraph test?
Would it help voters to get to the truth by having candidates answer questions and debate while hooked up to polygraph's that the audience could see on a big screen as to the truth vs the lies being told! Why would any candidate not want to prove they say what they mean and mean what they say? What do you think and why?|||Wow!
What a concept!
Of all the ideas brought forth upon this site, I really like yours.
Move to the head of the class!!!
I like this idea. It would do away with some of the people who are massive fabricators. It would require at least one candidate to take a stand on something...anything!
Oh, my goodness. What a great idea.
However, be careful of the person asking the questions. An improper follow-up (or no follow-up) could harm the integrity of the process.
As an example, Hillary was asked to release the eMails to the public. (Those in the library.) The answer came back that she has not held up the release of one single eMail.
Point: She has held up the release of over ten thousand eMails.|||How long would it take politicians to make polygraphs totally illegal, do you think? Heck they'd amend the constitution real fast if they thought it would ever apply to them.|||Although they are not 100% reliable, they are good enough to test the truth, or else they would not be used. So, yes, it would be a great idea. Although, we'd have to pick the one who lied the least, as all of them lie through their teeth.|||No one would run...
No one
because they are trying to please the masses...
masses of people
so they speak in generalities...
have not budgeted out all their programs
and if they did... would not be able to actually tell you what it was going to cost.
just like the commericals...
$19.95
small print... + shipping %26amp; handling
when you call and order the exacto knife, or super duper vac
its ends up costing $42.50!!!
8 people had to handle it or something.
Good idea
but would not hold up
no one would agree
or no one would want to run
besides....is that legal?|||I think we should vote for presidents by the telephone or web like american idol.|||Nope most politicians are constantly lying that's it's like breathing for them I think that most could say the sky is purple and pass the polygraph with flying colors|||No not really because those test are not so accurate.I know Hillary could not pass one. She has too many special interest groups to smooth over. She is a Lobbyist Queen.|||That would be great , and let us see who
passes it.|||It would depend on who makes up the questions. If they were asked, uncensored, by regular citizens, many candidates would fail. Some may even find themselves under investigation. (Don't worry, our government and media would never let that happen.)
The candidates are chosen by their parties, not the people. They are then paraded into the public eye answering well
rehearsed questions. The media even dictates the questions that we are supposed to want answers to.
Notice how many candidates just don't get any coverage, they are disregarded before they are ever heard.
A good example of media smearing an image is Ross Perot. He was chosen to run by the people. He used his own money and demanded and paid for his right to be heard. Since they couldn't shut him up, they had him labeled as loony.
Check out this debate with Perot, Clinton and Bush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-W4GWjN2鈥?/a>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMW3xYhi鈥?/a>
The real Ross Perot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
Especially knowing what you do now, who makes the most sense and who is loony.
Now, if enough people demanded lie detectors, maybe they would give it a go. Make no mistake, it would be as rigged as our elections. (can you say 'super delegate?')|||No, the answers would be so convoluted the test would be worthless.|||No, since the polygraph just demonstrates one can remain calm while lying. If anyone can do that, a top politician can. The lie detector assumes honest people have no reason to be nervous; therefore, sweating about considered a liar in front of the entire country isn't a consideration. Jeffrey Dahmer was arrested twice during his killing spree. He passed a polygraph test and was released each time. He was finally caught literally red-handed leaving a crime scene.|||that would be nice|||Quite frankly, I don't think it would help. Unfortunately, the American masses are so uneducated and ignorant that they would probably end up voting for the candidate which uses the biggest words or has the nicest hair.|||Couldn't that be faked?
LOL, Hillary is actually a Republican.|||If we hooked up Hillary to one it would catch on fire. Good idea! Lets do it.|||LMBO! The machine would burn up when Clinton answered a question if she ever really answered one.|||No, they are not reliable enough...that explains why they don't hook up polygraph tests to people who are in court.
The truth is, people are very cynical, and make excuses abotu everything. Someone could actually BELIEVE that they did not kill someone..or that they KNOW someone. People can actually convince themselves of a specific story.
Once polygraph teste become the norm, people will perfect the skill of convincing themselves the right answer.
But, there are many problems with the lie detector test. It is an unreliable source..you need hard evidence..|||You have a very good idea, and I would really like to see it in practice. Unfortunately, I could never see a politician ever going through with it.|||NO, they would have to have a conscience to register.
Besides, they don't know ahead of time, which outcome wins.|||Yes, because McCain is starting to campain more conservative than before, and it would be nice to know for sure if it was all lies or not. This would not work on people who feel no guilt, like Hillary. People would also realize that Romney was telling the truth and then would have became the Republican nominee, since a lot of people thought he was liberal since he was governor of Massachusetts.|||sure why not Obama lies all the time, I cant believe one word that comes out of his purple lips!|||That sure would be a fun show. Some politicians are sociopaths who could lie and still pass a polygraph test.|||That would be really interesting to watch - I wonder how many of the politicians would still tell lies if they did this...|||who could pass it?????|||Hmm I really really like this idea. I wonder what they would say if you proposed this. lol can we say Tongue Tied lol|||No, they are not reliable and that's why they are not admissible in court.|||great question but no politician would pass, then what would you do!!|||Since the American public is so taken by reality shows, I think that we should have debates with politicians hooked up to polygraph machines with tasers attached to stun those who don't tell the truth. That would be worth watching, since the writers haven't produced much lately.
What a concept!
Of all the ideas brought forth upon this site, I really like yours.
Move to the head of the class!!!
I like this idea. It would do away with some of the people who are massive fabricators. It would require at least one candidate to take a stand on something...anything!
Oh, my goodness. What a great idea.
However, be careful of the person asking the questions. An improper follow-up (or no follow-up) could harm the integrity of the process.
As an example, Hillary was asked to release the eMails to the public. (Those in the library.) The answer came back that she has not held up the release of one single eMail.
Point: She has held up the release of over ten thousand eMails.|||How long would it take politicians to make polygraphs totally illegal, do you think? Heck they'd amend the constitution real fast if they thought it would ever apply to them.|||Although they are not 100% reliable, they are good enough to test the truth, or else they would not be used. So, yes, it would be a great idea. Although, we'd have to pick the one who lied the least, as all of them lie through their teeth.|||No one would run...
No one
because they are trying to please the masses...
masses of people
so they speak in generalities...
have not budgeted out all their programs
and if they did... would not be able to actually tell you what it was going to cost.
just like the commericals...
$19.95
small print... + shipping %26amp; handling
when you call and order the exacto knife, or super duper vac
its ends up costing $42.50!!!
8 people had to handle it or something.
Good idea
but would not hold up
no one would agree
or no one would want to run
besides....is that legal?|||I think we should vote for presidents by the telephone or web like american idol.|||Nope most politicians are constantly lying that's it's like breathing for them I think that most could say the sky is purple and pass the polygraph with flying colors|||No not really because those test are not so accurate.I know Hillary could not pass one. She has too many special interest groups to smooth over. She is a Lobbyist Queen.|||That would be great , and let us see who
passes it.|||It would depend on who makes up the questions. If they were asked, uncensored, by regular citizens, many candidates would fail. Some may even find themselves under investigation. (Don't worry, our government and media would never let that happen.)
The candidates are chosen by their parties, not the people. They are then paraded into the public eye answering well
rehearsed questions. The media even dictates the questions that we are supposed to want answers to.
Notice how many candidates just don't get any coverage, they are disregarded before they are ever heard.
A good example of media smearing an image is Ross Perot. He was chosen to run by the people. He used his own money and demanded and paid for his right to be heard. Since they couldn't shut him up, they had him labeled as loony.
Check out this debate with Perot, Clinton and Bush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-W4GWjN2鈥?/a>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMW3xYhi鈥?/a>
The real Ross Perot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
Especially knowing what you do now, who makes the most sense and who is loony.
Now, if enough people demanded lie detectors, maybe they would give it a go. Make no mistake, it would be as rigged as our elections. (can you say 'super delegate?')|||No, the answers would be so convoluted the test would be worthless.|||No, since the polygraph just demonstrates one can remain calm while lying. If anyone can do that, a top politician can. The lie detector assumes honest people have no reason to be nervous; therefore, sweating about considered a liar in front of the entire country isn't a consideration. Jeffrey Dahmer was arrested twice during his killing spree. He passed a polygraph test and was released each time. He was finally caught literally red-handed leaving a crime scene.|||that would be nice|||Quite frankly, I don't think it would help. Unfortunately, the American masses are so uneducated and ignorant that they would probably end up voting for the candidate which uses the biggest words or has the nicest hair.|||Couldn't that be faked?
LOL, Hillary is actually a Republican.|||If we hooked up Hillary to one it would catch on fire. Good idea! Lets do it.|||LMBO! The machine would burn up when Clinton answered a question if she ever really answered one.|||No, they are not reliable enough...that explains why they don't hook up polygraph tests to people who are in court.
The truth is, people are very cynical, and make excuses abotu everything. Someone could actually BELIEVE that they did not kill someone..or that they KNOW someone. People can actually convince themselves of a specific story.
Once polygraph teste become the norm, people will perfect the skill of convincing themselves the right answer.
But, there are many problems with the lie detector test. It is an unreliable source..you need hard evidence..|||You have a very good idea, and I would really like to see it in practice. Unfortunately, I could never see a politician ever going through with it.|||NO, they would have to have a conscience to register.
Besides, they don't know ahead of time, which outcome wins.|||Yes, because McCain is starting to campain more conservative than before, and it would be nice to know for sure if it was all lies or not. This would not work on people who feel no guilt, like Hillary. People would also realize that Romney was telling the truth and then would have became the Republican nominee, since a lot of people thought he was liberal since he was governor of Massachusetts.|||sure why not Obama lies all the time, I cant believe one word that comes out of his purple lips!|||That sure would be a fun show. Some politicians are sociopaths who could lie and still pass a polygraph test.|||That would be really interesting to watch - I wonder how many of the politicians would still tell lies if they did this...|||who could pass it?????|||Hmm I really really like this idea. I wonder what they would say if you proposed this. lol can we say Tongue Tied lol|||No, they are not reliable and that's why they are not admissible in court.|||great question but no politician would pass, then what would you do!!|||Since the American public is so taken by reality shows, I think that we should have debates with politicians hooked up to polygraph machines with tasers attached to stun those who don't tell the truth. That would be worth watching, since the writers haven't produced much lately.
Do you start to question the credibility of an artist if all they paint/photograph are female nudes?
Doesn't it really make you wonder if yeah, they're a little talented but really they're just trying to find an excuse to be a perve all day every day?|||Well definitely some are perves. The only reason some people even go into photography is the naked chick factor. But when that is the case it is usually more then evident. The fact that someone prefers nudes as a subject matter of itself means nothing. Judge the art on its own merit.|||That would be like asking if someone paints or does photographs of landscapes only do you question the credibility of their work. I think you have to see beyond the artist, the medium and the subject matter. Their work will speak for itself.|||No. I have learned that many of the great artists of the world studied anatomy in order to be able to create beautiful nude works of art. You should also consider works of nude women to be a "jump" for many early artists, because when art went through much of the Greek periods female nudes were considered not as beautiful as male nudes. Also, through Catholic scruitiny (later on), nudes of any type were usually considered "unholy", and were usually only accepted in paintings of the Fall. (Strange...because now the female body is seen as one of the most beautiful things...and the religious groups should have accepted nudes b/c it wasn't considered "wrong" until the Fall).|||Not necessarily. If you've an eye for art, you will probably tell by looking at the work - is the subject really only the figure, or the drawing/painting itself as a work. Before it's anything else, an artwork is an artefact, a thing in its own right. I think Matisse said an artwork was not a mere representation of a subject - but a re-presentation. Female nudes fascinate artists not only because of sexual attractions, but because the female figure has such subtle but strong structures, with interplaying planes and lines of bone structure and soft muscles. The female figure is therefor like landscape - the rock geology "visible" shaping the draping of the earth, and thereby creating repeated forms, like music. That's why real artists, of any age, can find old or fat women ("like melting candles") more lovely to draw than some young nubile nymph unmarked by life (which can be pretty boring).|||First off, I'd retort would you be asking this question if the sex of the artist were female?
Anyway, there's a term for an artist's work which focuses on a singular subject matter: it's called a "theme". The collection of these thematic works is called a "series".
While variety and versatility have their prize and place in the art world, thematic painting is a time-honored, treasured tradition: like the iron-clad simplicity of the 12-bar blues, thematic painting is especially challenging because it obligates the artist to find new ways to say the same thing, new ways to speak from his or her inner soul. It's a journey Georgia O'Keefe took in painting numerous cow skulls, that Frida Kahlo took in her multiple depictions of her off-again, on-again husband and soul mate Miguel Diego and Andy Warhol embarked on with his many Campbell Soup paintings.
However, all that being said, I don't doubt that (if this is indeed a heterosexual male we're talking about) this focus on painting/photographing nude women isn't based on his sexual interest. And if he's single and looking, sure, I'm POSITIVE this is (at least subconsciously) another strategy for him to meet women.
I just mean that if he's (also) a true artist, finding a woman who accepts his heart will not end his artistry but enrich it with genuine beauty and truth.|||No. Not if the art is art and not just porn.|||well i wont say dat..coz for an artist if one thing is wat he/she lyks then dats wat they paint..they let their feelings come out n if dis is da subject they like to paint..thn dats pretty fine..art is also to paint da beauty of da world..n wat can be more b'ful n captivatin thn women?%26gt;?
Anyway, there's a term for an artist's work which focuses on a singular subject matter: it's called a "theme". The collection of these thematic works is called a "series".
While variety and versatility have their prize and place in the art world, thematic painting is a time-honored, treasured tradition: like the iron-clad simplicity of the 12-bar blues, thematic painting is especially challenging because it obligates the artist to find new ways to say the same thing, new ways to speak from his or her inner soul. It's a journey Georgia O'Keefe took in painting numerous cow skulls, that Frida Kahlo took in her multiple depictions of her off-again, on-again husband and soul mate Miguel Diego and Andy Warhol embarked on with his many Campbell Soup paintings.
However, all that being said, I don't doubt that (if this is indeed a heterosexual male we're talking about) this focus on painting/photographing nude women isn't based on his sexual interest. And if he's single and looking, sure, I'm POSITIVE this is (at least subconsciously) another strategy for him to meet women.
I just mean that if he's (also) a true artist, finding a woman who accepts his heart will not end his artistry but enrich it with genuine beauty and truth.|||No. Not if the art is art and not just porn.|||well i wont say dat..coz for an artist if one thing is wat he/she lyks then dats wat they paint..they let their feelings come out n if dis is da subject they like to paint..thn dats pretty fine..art is also to paint da beauty of da world..n wat can be more b'ful n captivatin thn women?%26gt;?
How do we ruin our friends credibility for all his new friends?
We are going to see our friend that we have not seen in a long time because he moved. We do not know any of his new friends and they do not know us, what should we do to embarass or annoy him etc.|||DON'T!
That is soooo unnecessary.
You wouldn't like it if someone did that to you.|||Maybe go drink some bleach in his bathroom. They'll find your corpse and question his choice in friends.
Two birds with one stone, your question solved, and one less *** in the world :D|||....................
Nothing. Grow up. Try that instead?
That is soooo unnecessary.
You wouldn't like it if someone did that to you.|||Maybe go drink some bleach in his bathroom. They'll find your corpse and question his choice in friends.
Two birds with one stone, your question solved, and one less *** in the world :D|||....................
Nothing. Grow up. Try that instead?
Are Facebook groups ruining the credibility of the charts?
The X-Factor campaign was one thing. Now they want Ultravox to be No 1 twenty odd years after the record was released. Yes it was a very popular song, but it is Vienna's legend that it was beaten by a novelty record to the No 1 spot.
You can't just go changing history because it wasn't fair.
Does anyone else agree?|||Totally agree, in my opinion these kinds of Facebook groups devalue the charts; also, a number 1 spot achieved through a Facebook push is just novelty value and royalties, it's nowhere near the same as reaching no.1 when the song actually comes out.|||The way I see it, if an internet campaign can push something higher than the "new, fresh" thing that has ads plastered all over iTunes, etc. More power to it. It's just one ad campaign, a more motivated consumer base beating another for sales. It's more impressive in my opinion.
|||I agree with Jimmy. The charts do one thing only: track how many copies have been sold. They are a chart of sales.
How a certain number of sales happens is not to be controlled by the charts, nor are they a measure of quality, just popularity. If a song is a popular fad 20 years after release instead of the week of, then the charts still have an obligation to report the fact.|||Back in the 50s record companies used to pay radio stations to play songs from their artists. It was called payola. About 5 years then NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer intiated lawsuits, that were later settled out of court, against Sony, Warner, and Universal for payola related crimes. So exactly what credibility have the charts ever had?|||I think the fact that you can go onto a gameshow and win a number one single ruined the credibilty of the charts before Facebook did. I do agree with you, but, it's only the charts. Let the people who actually care who's number one get on with it. :)|||Don't worry about it, it's not important. Besides, you can't change the past anyway. What happened happened. If a bunch of people want to retroactively update how they feel something should have gone good for them.|||I don't care about charts, I listen to music for my own personal enjoyment, so charts are irrelevant to me.
I don't use facebook so I don't care about facebook either.|||You lost me with "the credibility of the charts".
You can't just go changing history because it wasn't fair.
Does anyone else agree?|||Totally agree, in my opinion these kinds of Facebook groups devalue the charts; also, a number 1 spot achieved through a Facebook push is just novelty value and royalties, it's nowhere near the same as reaching no.1 when the song actually comes out.|||The way I see it, if an internet campaign can push something higher than the "new, fresh" thing that has ads plastered all over iTunes, etc. More power to it. It's just one ad campaign, a more motivated consumer base beating another for sales. It's more impressive in my opinion.
Report Abuse
|||I agree with Jimmy. The charts do one thing only: track how many copies have been sold. They are a chart of sales.
How a certain number of sales happens is not to be controlled by the charts, nor are they a measure of quality, just popularity. If a song is a popular fad 20 years after release instead of the week of, then the charts still have an obligation to report the fact.|||Back in the 50s record companies used to pay radio stations to play songs from their artists. It was called payola. About 5 years then NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer intiated lawsuits, that were later settled out of court, against Sony, Warner, and Universal for payola related crimes. So exactly what credibility have the charts ever had?|||I think the fact that you can go onto a gameshow and win a number one single ruined the credibilty of the charts before Facebook did. I do agree with you, but, it's only the charts. Let the people who actually care who's number one get on with it. :)|||Don't worry about it, it's not important. Besides, you can't change the past anyway. What happened happened. If a bunch of people want to retroactively update how they feel something should have gone good for them.|||I don't care about charts, I listen to music for my own personal enjoyment, so charts are irrelevant to me.
I don't use facebook so I don't care about facebook either.|||You lost me with "the credibility of the charts".
Does the media have any credibility when claiming the Japanese government is not being honest?
When they overestimate everything by 2 to 3 times just to get you to panic and watch?|||American journalism at its lowest; sticking their nose into Japan's troubled times and still trying to panic anyone they can. Media whores.|||In this case, I think so. For example, I looked at a LOT of raw video on the tsunami and it is almost impossible to imagine, even with all the preparation that they do, that "only" 10,000 or so people are dead or missing. Entire towns were wiped out with almost no warning.
Another example - the US government is telling Americans to evacuate out to more than 50 miles from the damaged reactors. The Japanese government has only evacuated something like six miles away.
Why the differences? I think the Japanese government is intent on showing the world that they can carry their own water. They also would like to believe that their management and technology is sound and world-class. Good for them, but if things go badly off the rails, they are risking the lives of thousands of people.
Taking actions and making decisions based on beliefs rather than evidence is a risky game.|||no one knows what is happening there fpr sure the japanese are thring to minimise it for the sake of the prople but this is new to them|||Has it ever had credibility?|||LOL, yep, it's one turd calling another turd brown.|||No, just ugly ways of getting ratings up.|||Such as...?
Another example - the US government is telling Americans to evacuate out to more than 50 miles from the damaged reactors. The Japanese government has only evacuated something like six miles away.
Why the differences? I think the Japanese government is intent on showing the world that they can carry their own water. They also would like to believe that their management and technology is sound and world-class. Good for them, but if things go badly off the rails, they are risking the lives of thousands of people.
Taking actions and making decisions based on beliefs rather than evidence is a risky game.|||no one knows what is happening there fpr sure the japanese are thring to minimise it for the sake of the prople but this is new to them|||Has it ever had credibility?|||LOL, yep, it's one turd calling another turd brown.|||No, just ugly ways of getting ratings up.|||Such as...?
How can a speaker establish credibility with the audience and why is it important in the speech?
The first part of the question is a bit hard to explain (you can fill in a course with it), but among dozens of other things, the speaker must be well informed on the subject he/she is giving a speech about, speak clearly and coherently, and be confident with a proper posture. It is of major importance to speech because without it public will not be inclined to listen to the speaker and so much of the effort of the speaker is lost simply cause public is not listening or paying attention. When you give a speech you need to have the full attention of your audience, or else it is pretty much a waste of time.|||Start out with a witticism or a little joke relating to the subject. It makes people smile or laugh and the whole audience relaxes. Don't forget they are nervous for YOU . So relax them. Then change the tonality of your voice so if the talk is long they don't get lulled into sleep. It happens with the best speeches. Keep to the main points and don't digress too much. And when you want to make a big point that people should really get, then walk away and to the side or even in front of the podium so they can see you are doing something different and they should take note. Smile and move around a bit so they can look at you too. They want to take you in with their eyes so make sure you have everything well put together. Speak slowly, enunciate well and look at them all , all around the room.|||To make the speaker establish credibility he first has to somewhat relate with the audience then you throw in some kind of hook that makes the audience listen. It is important because if you do not get the audience's attention then they aren't listening so that whole speech was a waste of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)