![]() |
|
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#11 (permalink) |
|
Uber Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,014
![]() |
I see UKIP's logo is on the front of the Independent today as "against annual monitoring on carbon emissions" (along with a picture of Blair and nothing else).
On the other side of the page are the logos of loads of other political parties and organisations who are all apparently in favour of this. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 (permalink) |
|
Uber Member
|
Excellent, the true only voice of opposition, Blair should be on the other side though.
![]()
__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 (permalink) |
|
Uber Member
|
What do you expect of the Independent?
There are plenty of organisations that would line up with UKIP too and they forgot them too, but since when has ANY newspaper not been 100% biased. That's why I gave up on them a long time ago.
__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,056
![]() |
That is a truly crass front page in the best tradition of the Independent. This vile newspaper is just about the least objective rag in what used to be called Fleet Street (which is ironic, given its name).
I suppose Oxfam and Christian Aid are there to make it look like the moral option, just as Newsnight employed "Ethical Man" to push its agenda. Since those two bodies have been reduced to left-wing mouthpieces we should disregard that. One thing is for sure, if the Independent is against you then you are probably doing something right. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 (permalink) |
|
Uber Member
|
If Chad can get a right to reply in a local rag, surely UKIP should get the same for this?
If they are going to accuse UKIP of something on their front page, I would suggest UKIP should have a one page right of reply at least!
__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 (permalink) |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Salisbury
Posts: 309
![]() |
To get back to the subject, can I add to the debate by pointing out that
1) Methane has eight times the low energy heat-absorbing quality of CO2; should we be thinking of shooting all cows and other ruminants, worldwide? (My God, think how much methane a single elephant can produce in a lifetime! :shock: ) 2) Chloro-FluoroCarbons (Good old CFC's) can absorb one hundred and twenty times more than CO2... My question is, with all the CFC's floating around over the Antarctic, why is it cooling? (Fair do's, it IS getting irradiated in exchange) 3) Ice cores... isotope ratios show that global temperature was higher 100,000 years ago than it is now... which shows two things... they still had ice at the poles... and bloody hell, those Australopithecines knew a thing or two about lighting fires Me? I'm a Sun Worshipper; we haven't been around long enough to know what the sun gets up to on an 11,000 year cycle, we can only hazard a guess based on Ice Ages (- which, by the way, we ought to be in, right now.) |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
This site is owned and operated by MyCartel Limited © 2007. Hosting: BookFizz.
This site supports Label My Food and Politigg
My latest commercial site: Cell Phone News 2.0 - [Mobile version]