HawkShack.com

by **makena** » Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:10 am

I know I don't post that much and I know our fellow shackers come from a wide spectrum of political views.
As a technologist and Scientist, I find this article hard to believe.

Can someone explain this to me?
Original Post: Lena H. Sun and Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post Published 4:06 pm, Friday, December 15, 2017

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/CDC-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity-12434800.php?utm_campaign=email-desktop&utm_source=cms%20sharing%20button&utm_medium=social

Mak

by **RiverDog** » Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:30 am

I saw that, and if true, it's outrageous. It reminds me of the old George Carlin act back in the 70's about the 8 words the FCC prohibited ("Tits, it souds like a nickname...'Hey, Tits'")

But at this point, it's just a rumor, so let's wait until we get something official.

by **c_hawkbob** » Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:31 am

It's an attempt to control the information the masses have access to. Keep the focus where they want it to be. It's about as un-American as it gets IMO. Pretty typical for this lot.

by **RiverDog** » Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:52 am

c_hawkbob wrote:It's an attempt to control the information the masses have access to. Keep the focus where they want it to be. It's about as un-American as it gets IMO. Pretty typical for this lot.

According to the report, the banned words apply to policy presentations, not information going out to the masses.

And I want to re-iterate, we have heard no official explanation from the WH. This is all "according to the Washington Post" and based on information from an "analyst", words and phrases that often times at the end of sentences rather than the beginning, resulting in the impression that what's being written is factual.

But if it's true, what it would appear to me that the adminstration is trying to do is to control the agenda and form opinions and arguments, forcing them to take a course predetermined by them...and yes, that's un-American.

Edit: HHS has responded:

"The assertion that HHS has 'banned words' is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process," HHS spokesman Matt Lloyd told The Hill on Saturday.

"HHS will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans. HHS also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions," the statement continued.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp

by **Aseahawkfan** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:17 pm

I'll wait to see if this something official and not yet another assault by the liberal media using fabricated news to attack Trump. I have never seen the media attack a president to this level in my life. The left-wing media is making Fox News look objective.

by **idhawkman** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:44 am

Left wing media has very few followers left and they are dropping their credibility by the day. The real tragedy is that when a "REAL" news story comes out, no one will be listening to them or believing them.

by **RiverDog** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:05 am

It's not what Cbob stated, ie Trump trying to control information going out to the masses, and you're right, the media is going bananas over this and has way overstated this stupid ass policy.

But IMO what it is, which I find to be outrageous, is that the Trump Administration, by banning certain words or phrases from policy documents or budgeting presentations, is trying to force what should be an open, honest debate about health care funding to take a course predetermined by them. They don't want the word 'fetus' to appear because they don't want to talk about abortion. If they don't talk about it, it's much easier not to include it in any funding decisions they may make.

by **Aseahawkfan** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:23 pm

RiverDog wrote:It's not what Cbob stated, ie Trump trying to control information going out to the masses, and you're right, the media is going bananas over this and has way overstated this stupid ass policy.

But IMO what it is, which I find to be outrageous, is that the Trump Administration, by banning certain words or phrases from policy documents or budgeting presentations, is trying to force what should be an open, honest debate about health care funding to take a course predetermined by them. They don't want the word 'fetus' to appear because they don't want to talk about abortion. If they don't talk about it, it's much easier not to include it in any funding decisions they may make.

Don't they all they do that? Hasn't the government been changing words for ages to accommodate some movement? I think this may be stupid if it is true. But acting like this administration is doing something previous administrations haven't done is pretty short-sighted. I still remember when the government wanted to eliminate any mention of Islamic Radical because the left-wing didn't want to offend moderate Muslims. Hasn't the government been forcing word modification in their reports for years and now it's a problem when Trump is in office.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:06 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:Don't they all they do that? Hasn't the government been changing words for ages to accommodate some movement? I think this may be stupid if it is true. But acting like this administration is doing something previous administrations haven't done is pretty short-sighted. I still remember when the government wanted to eliminate any mention of Islamic Radical because the left-wing didn't want to offend moderate Muslims. Hasn't the government been forcing word modification in their reports for years and now it's a problem when Trump is in office.

Of course, they have. Heck, Obama just got through modifying the wording of our tallest peak, from Mt. McKinley to Mt. Denali. The government has always tinkered with what kind of words or language they want used in specific instances.

But this isn't about just "some movement". This initiative involves presentations made by the Center for Disease Control, which IMO should be about as non political of an organization that one can find. It needs to be driven exclusively by science and medicine and completely unobstructed by politicians.

Suppose the Zika virus spreads to North America and the CDC wants funding for research into a vaccine but the Trump Administration has banned them from using the word "fetus" in their presentation, thus limiting what they can say to the non medical types that will be making the decision as to whether or not to approve funding. It's outrageous.

by **Aseahawkfan** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:45 pm

RiverDog wrote:Of course, they have. Heck, Obama just got through modifying the wording of our tallest peak, from Mt. McKinley to Mt. Denali. The government has always tinkered with what kind of words or language they want used in specific instances.

But this isn't about just "some movement". This initiative involves presentations made by the Center for Disease Control, which IMO should be about as non political of an organization that one can find. It needs to be driven exclusively by science and medicine and completely unobstructed by politicians.

Suppose the Zika virus spreads to North America and the CDC wants funding for research into a vaccine but the Trump Administration has banned them from using the word "fetus" in their presentation, thus limiting what they can say to the non medical types that will be making the decision as to whether or not to approve funding. It's outrageous.

It's stupid. We'll see the degree of stupid once it's finalized. This seems to be an attempt to please some of the religious conservatives in the nation, likely driven by Pence.

by **RiverDog** » Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:55 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:It's stupid. We'll see the degree of stupid once it's finalized. This seems to be an attempt to please some of the religious conservatives in the nation, likely driven by Pence.

Could be. The root cause almost certainly has something to do with abortion, and that would involve the hearts and minds of many social conservatives.

Banning the word "fetus" from discussions about the CDC budget would be analogus to ruling out the word "environment" in budget diuscussions about the National Parks Service.

by **Hawktawk** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:14 am

Its Fing embarrassing for our nation. Scary actually. Welcome to the flat earth society. No wonder he likes people like Putin and Duerte so much..
.

by **RiverDog** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 5:03 am

Hawktawk wrote:Its Fing embarrassing for our nation. Scary actually. Welcome to the flat earth society. No wonder he likes people like Putin and Duerte so much..
.

As usual, you're overreacting. This isn't like Nazi Germany with hundreds of storm troopers throwing books into a huge bonfire.

What Trump is trying to do is to shape the agenda of budget discussions to adhere to a course predetermined by him, and that's bad enough. He's intimidating his staff and preventing an honest and open discussion on the budget priorities for the CDC.

Limiting discussions to a strict framework isn't new and not in itself alarming, but in this case, considering who the agency is and the list of words he's banning makes it concerning.

by **NorthHawk** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:12 am

Although it does happen to an extent with all governments as they want to control the message, it's a slippery slope.
If you also have restrictions on who (researchers) can speak to the media or whether those researchers can give papers at conferences and limit the papers to the party message, it's a real problem.
That's when the trouble really starts. Studies and research that taxpayers have paid for is filtered to fit a party agenda. The truth is hard enough to get already, and we
don't need any filters from elected or non elected people restricting access to information because they want to promote a particular policy.

As we have seen, this administration has an agenda to discredit the media and shape or even dispel the truth (alternative facts, anyone) to what they want the people to hear.
Nobody has blatantly lied as much as the current one and publicly tried to discredit any stories or comments that cast them in a light that is less than admiring.
This is a different level than previous regimes, it's much more aggressive and confrontational than before.

We may not be in pre Nazi Germany, but we have to be vigilant against any moves in that direction.
It sounds melodramatic, but nothing less than freedom is at stake.

by **burrrton** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:49 am

We may not be in pre Nazi Germany

Ya think?

It sounds melodramatic

"Sounds"??

If you want to know why Trump gets so much traction with his "FAKE NEWS" stuff, this is why:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... e_cdc.html

by **RiverDog** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:35 pm

burrrton wrote:If you want to know why Trump gets so much traction with his "FAKE NEWS" stuff, this is why:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... e_cdc.html

That's an interesting take, if it's true. The article you posted is an opinion, not an official explanation from the Trump Administration or the CDC.

If you'll look as the language used in the article, he's using phrases such as "likely that staffers at HHS have already submitted their budget proposals", "have probably been passed up to the budget team," and "may help explain why the list of forbidden words is so peculiar"

Although what he says makes sense and could very well explain the banned words, it's nevertheless no more than one man's opinion. If it was as innocent as this guy is saying, then why hasn't the Trump Adminstration and/or the CDC come out and give us an explanation?

by **RiverDog** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:40 pm

NorthHawk wrote:We may not be in pre Nazi Germany, but we have to be vigilant against any moves in that direction.
It sounds melodramatic, but nothing less than freedom is at stake.

Eee gads, North Hawk! Freedom is at stake? They're talking about a few words that can't be used in a budget presentation. I think it's bull crap, too, but you're going way, way over the top on this thing.

You must have a very low estimation of our system of checks and balances if you think something like this is a threat to our freedom.

by **burrrton** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:51 pm

If it was as innocent as this guy is saying, then why hasn't the Trump Adminstration and/or the CDC come out and give us an explanation?

Not unreasonable, but would you respond to something that was mostly unfounded, not that big a deal in the first place (to whatever degree it's true), and quickly illustrated to be a nothing(ish)burger by people not exactly on your side?

Maybe it's not like Trump, but it seems like something his staff would have recommended he leave alone- maybe he listened to them for once?

[edit]

My overall point, though, wasn't so much that this was a completely fabricated lie, but more that it just looks like the typical bed-sh*tting overreaction of a press completely willing to run with literally *anything* if they think it reflects badly on Trump.

by **RiverDog** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:10 pm

burrrton wrote:My overall point, though, wasn't so much that this was a completely fabricated lie, but more that it just looks like the typical bed-sh*tting overreaction of a press completely willing to run with literally *anything* if they think it reflects badly on Trump.

Agreed, and if you'll read some of my responses to the others, I've made that very same point.

But as far as the press's running with anything that reflects badly on Trump, of course they will, especially on slow news days, and you can always count on the opposition to lap up every bit of it as if it were gospel. It happens with all POTUS's, and it's not as if this one hasn't asked for it.

by **burrrton** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:19 pm

It happens with all POTUS's, and it's not as if this one hasn't asked for it.

Agree on asking for it, disagree on all POTUSs. I'm glad the media found their critical eyes after 8 years off, though.

by **Aseahawkfan** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:47 pm

NorthHawk wrote:Although it does happen to an extent with all governments as they want to control the message, it's a slippery slope.
If you also have restrictions on who (researchers) can speak to the media or whether those researchers can give papers at conferences and limit the papers to the party message, it's a real problem.
That's when the trouble really starts. Studies and research that taxpayers have paid for is filtered to fit a party agenda. The truth is hard enough to get already, and we
don't need any filters from elected or non elected people restricting access to information because they want to promote a particular policy.

As we have seen, this administration has an agenda to discredit the media and shape or even dispel the truth (alternative facts, anyone) to what they want the people to hear.
Nobody has blatantly lied as much as the current one and publicly tried to discredit any stories or comments that cast them in a light that is less than admiring.
This is a different level than previous regimes, it's much more aggressive and confrontational than before.

We may not be in pre Nazi Germany, but we have to be vigilant against any moves in that direction.
It sounds melodramatic, but nothing less than freedom is at stake.

Trump will be gone in 4 to 8 years. Nothing much will change. Our system works. We're not sociailsts and certainly not national socialists or communists. We can contain a narcissist like Trump just as we have every other president. Freedom is not at stake any more than it has been with any other administrations that overtax us, create Patriot Acts, put people in camps, order drone assassinations, or lie on the stand after swearing an oath after banging interns. Our system is bigger than the man in the Oval Office. Hopefully it always will be. If they ignored him, it would be a far more effective at disempowering him.

As Riverdog and I discussed, the left wing media and people in general are losing their mind over Trump well beyond what is reasonable. It's the stupidest reaction to a president I've ever seen and I thought the right's reaction to Obama was beyond stupid. These idiots that mention Hitler and other stupid things just feed the beast that elected him and fuel his narcissistic personality.

by **Aseahawkfan** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:56 pm

burrrton wrote:Agree on asking for it, disagree on all POTUSs. I'm glad the media found their critical eyes after 8 years off, though.

Fox News did not turn them off for Obama. Or any of the conservative media. Left wing media been turning their eyes off for the Democratic candidates for a while now. They viciously attacked Bush Jr. and now Trump.

by **RiverDog** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 5:49 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:Fox News did not turn them off for Obama.

Talk radio didn't turn it off, either. Hannity and Limbaugh, with tens of millions of listeners, were nothing less than unmerciful with Obama.

by **burrrton** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 5:50 pm

Fox News did not turn them off for Obama. Or any of the conservative media.

Fox News (and conservative talk radio/websites) gets a fraction of the exposure of ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LAT, and so on, all of which spent 8 years apologizing for and/or explaining every Obama fck-up for him like he was their retarded little brother.

It was insulting, and I can honestly say I'm glad we have a press that might start speaking truth to power again despite their need to get a damn grip over Trump.

They undermine their own credibility.

by **RiverDog** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:15 pm

burrrton wrote:Fox News (and conservative talk radio/websites) gets a fraction of the exposure of ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LAT, and so on, all of which spent 8 years apologizing for and/or explaining every Obama fck-up for him like he was their retarded little brother.

Limbaugh and Hannity alone claim nearly 30M listeners, and those two are true hack artists. Then there's guys like Savage, Beck, Laura Ingram, Levin, and Gallagher, all conservative hosts, with between 5 and 10M each. Now some of those programs will claim the same listeners, but even when you take that into consideration, that's one heck of a big chunk of the adult market. Plus Fox lays to waste CNN and MSNBC as they are by far the most watched cable news network.

There's plenty of balance out there if you look at the media as a whole.

by **Aseahawkfan** » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:16 pm

burrrton wrote:Fox News (and conservative talk radio/websites) gets a fraction of the exposure of ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LAT, and so on, all of which spent 8 years apologizing for and/or explaining every Obama fck-up for him like he was their retarded little brother.

It was insulting, and I can honestly say I'm glad we have a press that might start speaking truth to power again despite their need to get a damn grip over Trump.

They undermine their own credibility.

Isn't Fox News the highest rated news station in the United States? Fox News gets plenty of exposure. The vast majority have cable now. Fox News is incredibly powerful at disseminating information and political opinion.

Let's be real. News reporting died when Fox News proved it was more profitable to deliver news with a political bias. You have to search many sources now to get the real story on just about anything.

by **RiverDog** » Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:00 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:Isn't Fox News the highest rated news station in the United States? Fox News gets plenty of exposure. The vast majority have cable now. Fox News is incredibly powerful at disseminating information and political opinion.

Let's be real. News reporting died when Fox News proved it was more profitable to deliver news with a political bias. You have to search many sources now to get the real story on just about anything.

They are by far the highest rated of the 3 major cable news networks. They have a bit of a corner on the markets as they are the only conservative tilting network in the lot as the others are either patently liberal (MSNBC) or liberal leaning (CNN).

As a rule, I don't get my news from TV, except when there's breaking news. I'll browse through my MSN start page, which has articles from a variety of sources, and read those that I have an interest it. But there are exceptions, such as when I'm at the gym on an elliptical or in the lobby of a doctor's office, that I'll watch TV news.

And as far as making a profit delivering news, that sure has changed over the past 50 years of so. When JFK was shot in 1963, all three TV networks cancelled all programming, including all commercials, for 4 days, from 30 minutes after the shooting on Friday afternoon unttil the funeral on the following Monday, and showed nothing exceot that which was related to the assassination. Nowadays, World War 3 could start and the networks wouldn't cancel their commercials.

by **burrrton** » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:16 am

They are by far the highest rated of the 3 major cable news networks.

*Cable*. They're no competition for the big 3, especially when taken together, with the point being that whatever Fox News was saying about Obama, that had almost zero bearing on what the average yahoo on Main Street USA heard- the public mostly knows only what ABC/NBC/CBS/LAT/NYT says.

This is not controversial.

by **RiverDog** » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:19 am

burrrton wrote:
*Cable*. They're no competition for the big 3, especiallyy when taken together, with the point being that whatever Fox News was saying about Obama, that had almost zero bearing on what the average yahoo on Main Street USA heard- the public mostly knows only what ABC/NBC/CBS/LAT/NYT says.

This is not controversial.

Comparing ratings between cable vs. broadcast news is difficult, the reason being that network news only lasts for 30 minutes and cable news is on 24/7 :Far more people watch the three network evening newscasts than prime time cable news shows— roughly ten times more. But as cable news is always on, polls show more people say they “regularly” get news from cable. So it's comparing apples and oranges.

http://www.journalism.org/numbers/cable ... iewership/

The link is 10 years old, but since network television ratings in general are in steep decline...they are now airing infomercials during the daytime to make ends meet...I doubt that much has changed. Networks are in deep chit.

I had a hard time finding any conclusive data but would be delighted to see what you can come up with.

by **burrrton** » Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:27 am

RiverDog wrote:I had a hard time finding any conclusive data but would be delighted to see what you can come up with.

I don't care enough to go dig- it's a small point- but I just know consistently over the years Nielsen numbers and polls have shown the number of people who watch the network news swamp those that watch cable news.

If that has changed, or is changing, great.

by **Aseahawkfan** » Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:58 am

burrrton wrote:I don't care enough to go dig- it's a small point- but I just know consistently over the years Nielsen numbers and polls have shown the number of people who watch the network news swamp those that watch cable news.

If that has changed, or is changing, great.

It's been changing for a while now. More people have Cable than not. The news stations also have very active web sites focused solely on news. Whereas ABC, NBC, and the like have News and other things. As far as local news, I'd agree. National news is much better delivered by the cable news networks along with all their other talk shows and the like. Fox News more than proved you could build an effective and powerful biased information delivery system and make money doing it.

You're so out of touch I keep wondering if you're older than 60 years of age. You're views are like that of a conservative that missed the technology train.

by **burrrton** » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:03 pm

Having cable is not the same as getting your 'news' from FNC.

You can illustrate this anecdotally, too: go find a non-political friend, and see if their knowledge of something controversial, say the tax bill, matches up with NBC News or Hannity.

If you think Obama's feet were held to the fire, I'd say you weren't paying attention, but you do you. I was up too late with work and I'm in a crabby mood I've gotta shake.

Merry Christmas, all!

by **Aseahawkfan** » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:08 pm

RiverDog wrote:They are by far the highest rated of the 3 major cable news networks. They have a bit of a corner on the markets as they are the only conservative tilting network in the lot as the others are either patently liberal (MSNBC) or liberal leaning (CNN).

As a rule, I don't get my news from TV, except when there's breaking news. I'll browse through my MSN start page, which has articles from a variety of sources, and read those that I have an interest it. But there are exceptions, such as when I'm at the gym on an elliptical or in the lobby of a doctor's office, that I'll watch TV news.

And as far as making a profit delivering news, that sure has changed over the past 50 years of so. When JFK was shot in 1963, all three TV networks cancelled all programming, including all commercials, for 4 days, from 30 minutes after the shooting on Friday afternoon unttil the funeral on the following Monday, and showed nothing exceot that which was related to the assassination. Nowadays, World War 3 could start and the networks wouldn't cancel their commercials.

Hopefully you hit other web sites and also focus less on articles than raw information. Articles almost always have a bias. Sometimes it's better to read the history of a situation. I know for myself our interactions in the Middle East have been well-documented by several sources. Those sources have lots of straight information absent a political bias. They show clearly that the Middle East is not just a concern over Islam and a hate of our freedom as we were sold during the run up to Iraq. We have clearly had our hand in political manipulation in those reasons including fomenting war and supporting extremely cruel men that used violence to stabilize the region. Only saving grace is that our options were usually one violent psychopath over another as that region of the world is very much used to power being held through violence.

But some countries are farther along than others. If you read, Iran is more Democratic and open than Saudi Arabia and many of the other Middle Eastern states. The way our government and media talks about Iran, you would think they were like North Korea, but they aren't. It's interesting to read on Iran's goals. They mainly want sovereignty. It's our "ally" Saudia Arabia that uses us to contain Iran's power as they challenge Saudi Arabia. Saudia Arabia agrees to support us quietly on Israel if we continue to assist them with Iran. It's a very convoluted series of alliances based less on the actions of each nation and how they align with us and more on our Israel policy.

Read up on everything focusing on the underlying history and factual information available. You will find so much of what is done is based on reasons other than what you are being told by the government and media. Keeping the masses stupid and distracted is part of their goal, so they can do what they do with less interference from the citizenry.

by **Aseahawkfan** » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:13 pm

burrrton wrote:Having cable is not the same as getting your 'news' from FNC.

You can illustrate this anecdotally, too: go find a non-political friend, and see if their knowledge of something controversial, say the tax bill, matches up with NBC News or Hannity.

If you think Obama's feet were held to the fire, I'd say you weren't paying attention, but you do you. I was up too late with work and I'm in a crabby mood I've gotta shake.

Merry Christmas, all!

My friends? They watch Fox News. Why do you think I hate Fox News so much. The amount of conservative BS I hear from them makes me as sick as the liberal BS I hear from the left.

As far as general people, they don't watch the news, ABC or Cable.

People that do watch the news watch the local news and their favorite news channel. I see far more people influenced in the modern day by Fox and MSNBC/CNN as well as online information. People are hooked to cable and the internet. I listen to so many people telling me about specials they watched on one of the Cable news channels or Discovery/History rather than reading that I'm driven nuts how much visual media has taken over from written media.

I'm not interesting in arguing with you. But the reality is our divisive politics have been taken to the level they have been taken by aggressive, profit-driven cable news stations and talk radio feeding both of their bases biased information that they further spread word of mouth.

by **RiverDog** » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:29 pm

burrrton wrote:I don't care enough to go dig- it's a small point- but I just know consistently over the years Nielsen numbers and polls have shown the number of people who watch the network news swamp those that watch cable news.

If that has changed, or is changing, great.

The ratings show that network news swamps cable, but the polls do not.

Nielsen only measures the number of viewers at a specific point in time, which is why they show that network news swamps cable. But it does not take into account that cable is on 24/7 and is thus not an accurate way to measure overall viewership. But I agree, it's a minor point and I'll drop it.

Merry Christmas!

by **Largent80** » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:34 pm

Why can't we say s***?

Every day, every single one of us takes one.

See, even this site is programmed to pinch it off.

by **RiverDog** » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:49 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:[Hopefully you hit other web sites and also focus less on articles than raw information. Articles almost always have a bias. Sometimes it's better to read the history of a situation. I know for myself our interactions in the Middle East have been well-documented by several sources. Those sources have lots of straight information absent a political bias. They show clearly that the Middle East is not just a concern over Islam and a hate of our freedom as we were sold during the run up to Iraq. We have clearly had our hand in political manipulation in those reasons including fomenting war and supporting extremely cruel men that used violence to stabilize the region. Only saving grace is that our options were usually one violent psychopath over another as that region of the world is very much used to power being held through violence.

But some countries are farther along than others. If you read, Iran is more Democratic and open than Saudi Arabia and many of the other Middle Eastern states. The way our government and media talks about Iran, you would think they were like North Korea, but they aren't. It's interesting to read on Iran's goals. They mainly want sovereignty. It's our "ally" Saudia Arabia that uses us to contain Iran's power as they challenge Saudi Arabia. Saudia Arabia agrees to support us quietly on Israel if we continue to assist them with Iran. It's a very convoluted series of alliances based less on the actions of each nation and how they align with us and more on our Israel policy.

Read up on everything focusing on the underlying history and factual information available. You will find so much of what is done is based on reasons other than what you are being told by the government and media. Keeping the masses stupid and distracted is part of their goal, so they can do what they do with less interference from the citizenry.

I'll always look at the source of an article before I click on it and try to stick with the 'trusted' sources, and yes, it includes CNN, MSNBC, and other liberal-slanted sources. Other sources include Reuters, The Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, etc. MSN seems to do a pretty good job of mixing up what they're feeding you.

Those organizations won't let their writers throw chit on a wall, they insist that they document where they're getting their information from and edit what's filed under their company name. Looking for a source is the key to separating fact from rumor. I'll look for certain phrases, like "according to people close to the President". It's like reading the disclaimer on an ad.

by **RiverDog** » Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:31 pm

Largent80 wrote:Why can't we say s***?

Every day, every single one of us takes one.

See, even this site is programmed to pinch it off.

You may take one, but I leave one.

by **Largent80** » Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:57 pm

When people say I gotta take a s***,

I always say, just don't take one of mine.... :lol:

by **burrrton** » Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:57 pm

Largent80 wrote:I always say, just don't take one of mine....

"I've only got two left and the weekend's coming up!"

HawkShack.com

Who is online