Leaderboard

probably a hair net and plastic name tag too

Harvard did a study of media bias and Donald Trump recently, and what they found was Fox giving the most balanced commentary at 52/48% negative coverage. All other networks were into the 90% negative range. I guess if think anything less that 90% negative is too forgiving, then you might see an issue with the coverage.

All these Arab nations used to be one (except North Africa which was never Arab 14 centuries ago before being invaded) then politics divided them with borders early last century (the British imperialism) and Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi A., Arab Emirates, Qatar and Yemen were created. Historically they always fight and settle disputes with violence. They never had respect for the females and used to bury their daughters alive (pre-Islamic). They have no love for each other. Remember with all the richness Saudis and AE did not take any Syrian refugees as an example. So this latest conflict with Qatar is no different. It is interesting that non-Arab Iran is now supporting the country (with food and aids) that their Arab brothers cut off relationships and trade. It is all politics.

Libya, Syria, Ukraine. Putin is countering the terrorist actions of the US in Syria. You do know that it is terrorism to try to overthrow governments, which the US has been trying to do in Syria for ten years. The US committed the ultimate war crime, the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation in Iraq and Afghanistan, all based on the usual US lies. Also Libya. And Ukraine. Russia isn't hooked up with the Neo-nazi Ukraine government, the US is.

I dont ask why, because I don't believe things were created with a false age. Because it is prima facie evidence (but by no means the only evidence) for the age of the earth, the age of life on earth, evolution, and the general incorrectness of a literal interpretation of the bible Assuming God could create a universe without a falsified age, why did He not? Why did he hide the fact the universe was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago? Why did he create the universe in such a way that studying it would lead to conclusions that directly contradict a literal interpretation of the bible? He wanted to hide all evidence of his existance except for one document of dubious origin and attribution, to trick people into disbelief in his existance, so He could then have them tortured for all eternity in Hell for using their "God given" rational mind and free will? You first sentence contradicts the rest. If it cannot be dissected by science, then your "science oriented creationists" are proving nothing. Also, these "scientists" (at least the ones you linked to) seem to be arguing against the earth having an false apparent age. Both of these are examples of playing both sides of the fence. Please pick a side. Your "creation scientists" are not persuasive because they do not understand or perform science. They form a conclusion first (i.e. the bible is literally correct) and then cherry pick or outright distort evidence to fit in with that narrative. Because of this, an even passing knowledge of what the actual science says is enough to poke massive holes in their assertions. Real science forms a hypothesis first, then tests it to see if the hypothesis is supported, and discards it if not. Scientific theories are only strongly accepted if they produce repeatable results, have predictive power, and are confirmed by multiple independant lines of evidence. And even then they can be superceded if a more accurate theory, or one with a greater range of applicability comes along.

They could be made to come over in much larger numbers with relative ease. The EU cut a deal with Turkey to hold back as many as they could. If Turkey stops, or worse, decides to encourage people to head across the border, you'll see what a real flood looks like.

Contemplates the actions of chimpanzees.

Nonsense. I would love to participate in science-based discussion threads here, if there were any. But, there's not...

At long last, right!

Yes I know, DOP already pointed out that there are other nuclear materials used to measure older dates. Even radiocarbon decay can be used to measure back to about 50,000 years. That's still 10 x what some people believe it says in the bible about the age of the earth. I have no problem with people who want to believe in god, or follow the teaching in the bible but one should not confuse physics with metaphysics. Science is what it is, there shouldn't be any dichotomy.

There's nothing "unconscious" with what the liberal media does these days. There's always an agenda - a mean-spirited and/or unified, orchestrated agenda - to push their own narrative. Take note that no media has pointed out that only Trump had the big balls to publicly shame deadbeat NATO members - and those countries are now complying (including Canada), and starting to pay-up! Some countries agree with Trump on that one, although none of them had ever had the courage to raise that issue! Look how bold Romania is to agree with Trump - becoming bold like Trump to speak out publicly in his approval of Trump - and being the first one to step up and pay! All media reported about that NATO meeting was how that meeting seemed to have failed, due to Trump! Our own media didn't even find anything embarrassing or shamefully wrong with our government humming and hawing - and trying to justify being a deadbeat! Why does anyone who claims to be on a higher moral ground, have to be shamed to do what's only morally right?

Um, no. Quite clearly anatomically between apes and humans. Self evident even to a layman. See for example homo erectus: We already discussed this. Unless it was a "magical flood", you cannot explain how fossils are separated into distinct layers rather than all jumbled together.

Agreed...even MSNBC's legal experts have been trying to point out this reality....an obstruction charge cannot be legally sustained based on what we know. All those who are still butt-hurt (American or Canadian) over the Trump election victory will have to hope for some other way to get him.

Thanks to Comey you can relax, and believe Dershowitz- In his testimony former FBI director James Comey echoed a view that I alone have been expressing for several weeks, and that has been attacked by nearly every Democratic pundit. Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes. Just as the president would have had the constitutional power to pardon Flynn and thus end the criminal investigation of him, he certainly had the authority to request the director of the FBI to end his investigation of Flynn. Any "hope" on the part of misguided liberals that there is a chance for an obstruction charge is now also over.

Didn't know you did...now I do. JT goes there and makes women use the 2nd class citizen entrance. Do you make your women do the same? Or do you leave them at home?

No, you actually don't. In my region FOX is part of the US news theme pack, which includes CNN, CNBC and MSNBC, and Bloomberg Business. Would you like me to cite the study? I doubt you'd find it acceptable anyway. As for how slanted FOX is, why don't you take it that I am not a leftist, and that if I think FOX is slanted it's slanted. I think CBC is slanted too, though not quite as severely, and in the opposite direction. I bet you wouldn't challenge me on that. The Toronto Star is deeply slanted, along the same lines as FOX, though in the opposite direction. I differentiate between mistakes and clear, deliberate lies or slanted news. The people who watch MSNBC are a different variety. Given MSNBCs outlook you're mostly talking about progressive oriented people, and probably much better educated than most FOX viewers (which does not mean smarter). I mostly just watch Morning Joe, though I have caught some weekend panels which are fairly intelligent. I know that some of the shows, like the one with Sharpton, are unwatchable. But we weren't talking about MSNBC, which does not have a news element. I've spoken about such people on other topics here fairly recently, like the one on universities producing thin skinned people, and the one on freedom of speech. I'm sure you would have no argument with me over my opinions in those situations. And what is my ideology? If you suggest it's liberal or progressive I think that would produce a lot of laughter among the Left wing posters here.

Fox does it, and even more often? With every single other news source out there gunning for them, try again. If Fox was doing this, other news sources, which work along side of them and would then see this behaviour regularly, would be blowing the whistle on them regularly. And we would be hearing about it all the time. So, no, Fox almost never does this kind of thing, and that's not even the point. The point is that CNN did it, and many of the MSN do this kind of crap because they can get away with it.