Maybe.
100% guaranteed that they DO have their biases.
AS responsible news consumers, all we can do is keep our antennae up!
Got no idea at all. Maybe though, if we pull back on the free military assistance weâre giving much of the world - free to them, that is, paid for by taxpayers here - we could use that money for universal care here at home. Iâd be for that.
Edit - I just read an analysis of the decision. It is not as straight-forward as I thought.
If I were a betting manâŚI would say that the BBC News and France 24 âŚhas LESS bias, on the US political scene - then Fox News. NOT that thereâs anything wrong, with watching Fox News.
But firstâŚan interesting article, from Todayâs Patheos Catholic newsletter:
Now back to Fox News.
WowâŚjokes about rape survivors? When you listened to the speech, did you hear that?
I can answer that. It was a very good, Maga speech. He did NOT joke about rape victims, for Godâs sake.
Go to the sources!!!
Randy - not pointed at you, btw, you were posting a link not making a comment. I appreciate the link.
This BBC article today, might fit in well here - and give us hope!
âTo handle yourself, use your head; to handle others, use your heart.â-- Eleanor Roosevelt
âEat a live frog every morning, and nothing worse will happen to you the rest of the day.â - Mark Twain
I do love me a good speculation theory, but time travel, fun as it would be, probably ainât gonna happen.
Eating a frog every morning, is possible. Add Brussell sprouts and stir-fry.
Not only probably ainât gonna happen but certainly ainât gonna happen!
Suppose you could time-travel to the first year after you were born. Are you going to meet your one-year old self? Or if you time-travel to yesterday. Will you meet an almost exact self as you are now. Or suppose suppose someone time-travels to the first year after you were born and kills you. Will you then go out of existence? Will it be the case that you never lived after your first year of life?
No, time-travel is self-contradictory, and therefore impossible.
1 Like
Time-travel is only possible forwards⌠in terms of light-speed type travel the faster one goes the slower one ages. So if you left point A and travelled wherever accordingly and then returned to point A at logically a future point more earth time will have elapsed than the time spent travelling forward â thus those on earth will have aged as per usual but you will have aged at a given rate much slower than they and thus technically be younger in comparison to those you have returned to at point A at that future point; so goes one theory.
1 Like
I understand that, Davo. It is consistent with Einsteinâs theory or relativity. But the fact of comparatively slower aging cannot be appropriately labelled, âTime travel.â
I saw this on the BBC website today. Wow! Talk about US jury case settlements! And for one person, mind you!
Question. Isnât that what Trump is approximately worth?
This might change my attitude a bit.Seems a little over the top (so to speak)
Trumpâs total disgust with his own US Intelligence Agencies and his unabashed fawning of Putin is interesting⌠one wonders how his supporters swallow this â probably still, hook-line-and-sinker. As has been previously stated⌠âWell weâll just have to wait and see, wonât we?â
Hum! The radio news says BOTH Republicans and Democrats, were SHOCKEDâŚWhen Trump believed Putinâs denial of election meddlingâŚPutin also denies any Russian involvement, in Russian poisoning on English soilâŚAnd Putin went home, to praise and acclaim - following the meeting.
I wonder. If Putin had some oceanfront property in ArizonaâŚAnd threw in the Golden Gate bridge for freeâŚwould Trump buy it???
âBut really, did anyone really expect him to declare the Russian leader a liar on global TV? What would have been the point of traveling to Helsinki and arranging a summit between the worldâs two biggest nuclear powers, only to scuttle the chance at a new and improved relationship? It wasnât going to happen, and in fact Trump hinted at that beforehand, when he told reporters not to expect âa Perry Masonâ moment.â - Liz Peek
The fact that the press are wetting their pants is nothing new, of course, that is all they can do since they have not one constructive thing to do - and with the elections coming up, weâll hear more and more shrill banshee-wailing from the Lefties every time the Donald blows his nose.
So - he did not do what was expected of him, which was to bring antagonisms to a higher pitch by trying to embarass Putin on TV. I think that was smart - let Chris Wallace ask those questions.
2 Likes
Oh, No! I just saw this item, on the BBC website. Will wonders never cease?
In the meantime, Iâll wrestle with thisâŚfrom todayâs Patheos Catholic newsletter:
Good reasons for saying Trump is doing the right thing with Russia. Actual reasons, not the hacking-up-a-fur-ball derangement syndrome of the far left.
Yeah!? âŚand who knows what that is given out of one side of his mouth he firmly affirms Putinâs strong and powerful denials BUT THEN out of the other side of his mouth he finally agrees with the assessment of your Intelligence Agencies that the Russians were running interference â Trump is an utter JOKE and all but his acolytes can see it; even the bulk of the GOP sees it and moans with hand-slaps to forehead! 
Trump Derangement Syndrome - you need to take a pill and stop drinking the kool-aid. You know almost nothing about this, obviously. Sad, for an otherwise pretty smart guy.
Did you even READ that article? Or is your blind animosity so firmly set that any balanced considerations are obviously false?
You seriously donât want me to put up some youtubes PROVING the point do you?⌠or are you gonna spin the line that theyâre ALL âfake newsâ and doctored